User:Hpembroke/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: (link) Talk:Applied linguistics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen this article because "Applied Linguistics" obviously perfectly relates to our course, so by evaluating it I can look more into actual content, as well as gain ideas for how my own Wiki page that is focused on linguistics should look like.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead does include an introductory sentence that is a great definition of applied linguistics and introduces the article well. However it does not mention the article's major sections, and instead briefly lists a few fields that linguistics interacts with. While this is interesting information, it gets repeated in a more detailed way under the "Domain" section. The "Lead" is wonderfully concise, however switching the lists of disciplines with new information or a more detailed introduction to the different sections of the article may be more effective.


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead felt unsatisfying. The length was perfect: brief and concise. However the content could have been more related to the individual sections that would be discussed throughout the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The sections were incredibly superficial and barely went into how the field of linguistics is actually applied in the real world. It does briefly go through the history of linguistics in different countries, and the information is all up to date and backed by good sources which makes the content more appealing. However, I felt as though it needed a lot more content. The article only barely touched the political aspects of linguistics, which the Lead implied would be the focus of the article.


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content left me, as the reader, wanting more. The concept of discussing linguistics in politics nation by nation was incredibly interesting, but not enough information was given to keep attention or retain any important information.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

There is no bias or political view stand point. The tone is very neutral and all of the information was spread out equally and not focused on any particular stance. Despite the lack of content depth, no viewpoints were over or under represented. The article was very information based, not opinion or position based.


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
One of the strongest parts of this article was the tone and balance. Very information based and not influential towards one perspective or the other at all.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The facts in the article mainly are dates and names of specific organizations. Each item of information is connected to a specific source, which the links all worked to. The sources themselves were relevant and timely, and were very well connected to the sections the article divided itself into.


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Overall I was very satisfied with the list of sources. The were very relevant to the article and official recordings.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well written and could be read by anyone with a good English foundation, which is an attractive quality in such a broad platform such as Wikipedia. The information given is very clear, and the sections all had relevant information in them, that was specific to its respective section. Thus, the organization was effective. I did not notice any blatant spelling or grammar errors.


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
While each section needed more information, the sections themselves and the information included in them were very well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There were no images included in this article, which could be an area to improve on.


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
Since there were no images, I cannot evaluate this area outside from suggesting that an image is included.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Most of the talk page focuses on minor changes, such as a link to a source was malfunctioning, and layout suggestions. This is a C-Class rated articled, marked as Top Importance. This article takes a more global and historical perspective and conversation than we do in class.


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page seems to be very effective and conversational. Most everyone is there leaving comments to be helpful and aid in the function of the page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article overall had a specific focus and intention to share information on the political and interdepartmental influence of linguistics. The organization was by far the biggest strength of the article. Separating by country really offers up room for some very interesting analyse and information. That being said, the content was lacking meat. The history section was thorough and satisfying, however the other sections seemed short and unfinished. This is a great skeleton for what could be developed into a well informed, full bodied 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?

Overall evaluation
This is a good start that needs more development. Overall I am very intrigued by what this article can become with more information. The biggest red flag is the superficial feeling of the content.

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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Applied linguistics