User:Hammed.MP/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Speech act
 * Speech acts are of primary interest to me and there is a likelihood that I will research on them during the course of my PhD.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

It has a satisfactory introductory sentence, but it could be written more clearly for all readers to understand. The lead does not include all the sections and has some content not covered in the text. It is also reasonable short.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

==== It has a satisfactory introductory sentence, but it could be written more clearly for all readers to understand. The lead does not include all the sections and has some content not covered in the text. It is also reasonably short. ====

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is both relevant and up-to-date, but a couple of sections could be avoided or written less about such as the lengthy section about speech acts in computer science.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The tone of the article is satisfactorily neutral with little bias towards a particular viewpoint and few attempts at reader persuasion. However, Searle’s contributions could receive a better share.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The sources are current, well-supported and thorough enough for the majority of readers, and the links are functional.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

'''Towards the end, particularly the sections for computer science and law could be clearer to draw readers more in rather than to drive them away. Also, I feel that some sections such as speech acts in language development could use more information. The article is well-segmented but the segments are a little lopsided regarding the amount of information offered for them.'''

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

Unfortunately, there were no media nor images. Yet not much was needed in this regard I believe.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page consists of comments other people have made. For instance, I found one mentioning a point I had in mind about Searle’s contribution deserving more space in the article. The article is within both Linguistics and Philosophy WikiProjects. I found it quite intriguing how different editors respect and ask for each other’s opinions in adding or editing the article. It seems very inviting for people like me who are new to it.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

==== The talk page consists of comments other people have made. For instance, I found one mentioning a point I had in mind about Searle’s contribution deserving more space in the article. The article is within both Linguistics and Philosophy WikiProjects. I found it quite intriguing how different editors respect and ask for each other’s opinions in adding or editing the article. It seems very inviting for people like me who are new to it. ====

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

This is an article well worth reading. It is well-segmented and covers good ground on the topic. Only some sections need to be developed more and some need to be made more concise or even avoided. I feel Searle's contribution and Austin's felicity conditions deserve a place in the article.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

==== This is an article well worth reading. It is well-segmented and covers good ground on the topic. Only some sections need to be developed more and some need to be made more concise or even avoided. I feel Searle's contribution and Austin's felicity conditions deserve a place in the article. ====

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Talk:Speech act