User:IsabelRM 0722/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1
'''Vyvyan, Evans., Benjamin, Bergen., and Jörg Zinken. (2007). The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Equinox Publishing Ltd. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/59443724/COGNITIVE_LINGUISTICS-VYVYAN_EVANS20190529-8486-9kcjsi-libre.pdf?1559160837=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Cognitive_Linguistics_Reader.pdf&Expires=1694291936&Signature=Uuwujww93zdM0meZj9Mpy2yd2rqrYl8AXhJRckQqA3VHDnzdB5ikErrPYJe5ZZj-9vRLN9-1I7qdRZAb0EJfJohOXMTZCjhDMDjfh-wDmdJBD2mf2HvWtX4dd4hk1FFn4hZKnm33w3BhUsfrLgGrDTZaNchOxPZqDzkWLcJ4RlzvfIP6dTREczmjwgMVzP0jWDCsoSymHSvLaCYGv03DCnB1DWutI3M82fXHYC7dHKlUP~2q0IIt58XeciJq-LFCHM3HNfmAW21A6IJrSZTzdy4hqNTsCIpQntru9tEvVR~wCdX6ayXKaNzDyaKkkkbPQnU8acCXxVTI-mE6jS~oAg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA#page=146 '''
 * Article title: "Prototype theory" :
 * Article Evaluation:
 * At first glance, there are already some key criteria of a good Wikipedia that are lacking. First of all, some of the topics, such as "Dynamic Structure and Distance", are extremely underdeveloped, while others, "Categories" for instance, are elaborated on extensively. This imbalance in development indicates that some more research needs to be performed in order to call this article complete.
 * In terms of the citations and references, it states at the top of this article that more in-line citations are needed, and I definitely agree with this, considering when I reached a section I was interested in fact-checking, there was no citation listed. There are multiple references listed, but they are rarely referred back to throughout the article. When examining the References section further, many of the references used are ones that Wikipedia would advise against using, such as original research articles. While it seems as though the original research articles are all reporting similar findings, this is still a source that doesn't align with the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, I noticed that most of the sources used were written in the late 1900s and early 2000s. The most recent article I saw was written in 2020, which was preceded by 2019, then 2012. Only three articles from the list of thirty were ones that I would consider recent. Finally, there is a serious lack of diversity of authors in the References. Out of the thirty sources, only eleven main authors were listed, with a few other authors sprinkled in as well.
 * Though this article lacks many things, there are some strong points of this article that cannot be ignored. For instance, the introductory sentence is very concise, and it covers a general overview of what this article will talk about. After reading the rest of the article, and then coming back to examine the introduction, I noticed that the entire first paragraph does in fact only cover what will be discussed further. No unnecessary information is included.
 * The article seems neutral as well. It does not seem biased towards one school of thought or another. The language used is objective, grammatically correct, clear, and concise. It is also organized into broader topics, then smaller, relevant subtopics within those that make it easy to identify the major points.
 * There is only one image used, but the image's caption is well-written(I only wish there was a source listed), and the image is obviously placed there to deepen the understanding of the topic. The image is placed neatly in the section it is relevant to, so it is visually appealing as well.
 * The article has not received a rating, and it is part of a Psychology and Linguistics Wikiproject. There are some people on the Talk page that contradict some of the statements within the article, so the credibility of the article comes into question. There are also some concerns about formatting and unclear sentence structure.
 * This article could be improved by diversifying the authors in the References section, and adding more in-line citations.
 * Sources
 * Johnson, Sandi. (2023, September 4). What is prototype theory? All the Science. https://www.allthescience.org/what-is-prototype-theory.htm#google_vignette 
 * The article has not received a rating, and it is part of a Psychology and Linguistics Wikiproject. There are some people on the Talk page that contradict some of the statements within the article, so the credibility of the article comes into question. There are also some concerns about formatting and unclear sentence structure.
 * This article could be improved by diversifying the authors in the References section, and adding more in-line citations.
 * Sources
 * Johnson, Sandi. (2023, September 4). What is prototype theory? All the Science. https://www.allthescience.org/what-is-prototype-theory.htm#google_vignette 
 * Sources
 * Johnson, Sandi. (2023, September 4). What is prototype theory? All the Science. https://www.allthescience.org/what-is-prototype-theory.htm#google_vignette 

'''Zeifert, Mateusz (2020, May 20). ''Rethinking Hart: From open texture to prototype theory--Analytic philosophy meets cognitive linguistics. Springer. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11196-020-09722-9 '

Option 2
'''Green, Lisa. (2007). Syntactic variation. University of Massachusetts Amherst. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context=linguist_faculty_pubs '''
 * Article title: "Syntax" :
 * Article Evaluation:
 * My first concern with this article are the in-line citations, or lack thereof. If someone wanted to fact-check a piece of text, it would prove to be a difficult task. In fact, there is an entire section, "Etymology", that has no citations whatsoever. However, when examining the actual references section, it seems to be pretty well done. There is a diversity of authors, the sources are relatively recent, and they all seem like they are mostly, if not all, secondary sources, which is what Wikipedia prefers.
 * As far as the introduction goes, I think it is somewhat underdeveloped. The first sentence provides a good summary of what syntax is, but the rest of the paragraph does not cover everything that will be discussed later on. Something that is done well though is that the introduction does not bring up any topics that are irrelevant to the rest of the article.
 * The content within the article is underdeveloped as well. There is definitely some content that is missing or even incorrect. On the Talk page, there are some contradictions and questions about credibility, which is concerning especially if there is no citation correlated to a piece of factual text. According to the References section, the content should be up-to-date though. The page was also last edited on August 23, 2023, which is a good sign. There is no discussion of any inequities though. No minority viewpoints are presented.
 * There are some concerns worth noting about the tone and balance of the article, such as the fact that some topics are very developed, such as "Theoretical Syntactic Models", but other sections are not. There are also very few sections, so I think there could be more topics included.
 * The writing quality could also be called into question at certain points. For the most part, it is clear to follow, but there are definitely some sections that could be improved by editing for grammatical conventions and revising the sentence structure. This is also recognized on the Talk page. The sections that the article is broken up into do make sense though, so it fulfills this criteria.
 * The only image in the article does contribute to the audience's understanding and is relevant to the information presented. The caption is well-written and its location is visually appealing.
 * This article is a part of some Wikiprojects, including Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science.
 * This article could be improved by developing the topics that are underdeveloped, fact-checking any inconsistencies, and adding more citations.
 * Sources:
 * Ellis, Matt. (2022, April 29). What is syntax? Learn the meaning and rules, with examples . Grammarly. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/syntax/#:~:text=What%20is%20syntax%20in%20linguistics,of%20direct%20and%20indirect%20objects.
 * The only image in the article does contribute to the audience's understanding and is relevant to the information presented. The caption is well-written and its location is visually appealing.
 * This article is a part of some Wikiprojects, including Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science.
 * This article could be improved by developing the topics that are underdeveloped, fact-checking any inconsistencies, and adding more citations.
 * Sources:
 * Ellis, Matt. (2022, April 29). What is syntax? Learn the meaning and rules, with examples . Grammarly. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/syntax/#:~:text=What%20is%20syntax%20in%20linguistics,of%20direct%20and%20indirect%20objects.
 * This article could be improved by developing the topics that are underdeveloped, fact-checking any inconsistencies, and adding more citations.
 * Sources:
 * Ellis, Matt. (2022, April 29). What is syntax? Learn the meaning and rules, with examples . Grammarly. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/syntax/#:~:text=What%20is%20syntax%20in%20linguistics,of%20direct%20and%20indirect%20objects.

'''Villalba, Xavier. (2019-20). Introduction to generative syntax. Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/e-learning/material-foundations.pdf '''

Option 3

 * Article title: "International Linguistic Association" :
 * Article Evaluation:
 * This article is a stub, meaning that it is unfinished. If we go down the list of evaluation criteria, it is going to be underdeveloped for most of the categories.
 * There is a brief introductory overview of what the International Linguistic Association is, which is well-written and concise. There is hardly anything else written, so there is no way to know if it includes information that is unnecessary, or covers all of the topics that are discussed. So far, the other information that is presented very briefly is touched on in the introduction.
 * As far as content goes, there is hardly any. There is a lot of information missing, it does not address any inequity gaps, and it is most likely not up to date with all of the information that exists now about the ILA.
 * So far, there doesn't look to be any biases present in this article, and the language is objective. There are no imbalances between topics, but there isn't very much content at all, so that isn't indicative of a good article in this case. Also, there isn't a distinct separation of topics yet. When I say, "topics", I just mean the various short paragraphs that exist so far. The writing is also clear and easy to understand.
 * There are no sources listed and no References section.
 * There are no images.
 * On the Talk page, it states that this article is a part of the Linguistics Wikiproject. It is rated as low importance in this Wikiproject. There have been no conversations on the Talk page thus far.
 * Overall, the article is extremely unfinished, and there are very few strengths that I can identify. This article could be improved by conducting more research and adding more relevant topics.
 * Sources:
 * Fowkes, Robert. (2020, November 16). The International Linguistic Association: A subjective history. Routledge Taylor and Francis group. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1994.12098335
 * International Linguistic Association. (2023, June 15). 67 Annual conference of the International Linguistic Association. International Linguistic Association. https://www.ilaword.org/04_conference_2023.aspx
 * International Linguistic Association. About us. International Linguistic Association. https://ilaword.org/02_abt_ila.aspx
 * Overall, the article is extremely unfinished, and there are very few strengths that I can identify. This article could be improved by conducting more research and adding more relevant topics.
 * Sources:
 * Fowkes, Robert. (2020, November 16). The International Linguistic Association: A subjective history. Routledge Taylor and Francis group. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1994.12098335
 * International Linguistic Association. (2023, June 15). 67 Annual conference of the International Linguistic Association. International Linguistic Association. https://www.ilaword.org/04_conference_2023.aspx
 * International Linguistic Association. About us. International Linguistic Association. https://ilaword.org/02_abt_ila.aspx
 * International Linguistic Association. (2023, June 15). 67 Annual conference of the International Linguistic Association. International Linguistic Association. https://www.ilaword.org/04_conference_2023.aspx
 * International Linguistic Association. About us. International Linguistic Association. https://ilaword.org/02_abt_ila.aspx

Option 4

 * Article title: "Autonomy of Syntax":
 * Article Evaluation:
 * This article is also a stub, meaning it is extremely underdeveloped.
 * Starting at the introduction, this is one of the only sections that is very developed. It begins by giving a concise and clear overview of what the autonomy of syntax is. It also touches on some topics that could be elaborated on. The only other section that is somewhat developed talks about the history of the autonomy of syntax, which is touched on in the introduction as well.
 * The content that is written so far (the history of the autonomy of syntax) is relevant to the topic. It is probably not completely up-to-date considering this article is just a stub, meaning that there is a lot more research that can be added. The citations are also not super recent, with the most recent one being published in 2014, while the rest were published in the late 1900s and early 2000s. This article does not mention any equity gaps thus far.
 * The article is written very objectively, and I cannot sense any biases or personal opinions from the author. I would also rank the writing quality pretty high. It is easy to understand and there are no major grammatical errors that I noticed.
 * There are only 5 sources as of right now. So far, there is a diversity of authors, which is a good indication that the information is credible. Also, they all seem to be secondary sources, and the links do work. Finally, they are slightly outdated, which I mentioned previously.
 * There are no images in this article.
 * The Talk page has not been utilized yet, but it does state that this article is a part of a Linguistics Wikiproject.
 * Overall, this source is extremely underdeveloped, but it shows potential. I think the introductory paragraph could serve as a useful tool for deciding what other topics to add, and what else needs to be elaborated on. :
 * Sources:
 * Croft (1995) Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics, in Language Vol. 71, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 490-532
 * Spinelli, David. (2022, November 22). What does the autonomy of syntax mean? A neurolinguistic and cognitive philosophical overview of syntactic-sematic issue. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365652506_What_does_the_Autonomy_of_Syntax_Mean_A_Neurolinguistic_and_Cognitive_Philosophical_Overview_of_the_Syntactic-Semantic_Issue
 * Dehé, Nicole., Jackendoff, Ray., McIntyre, Andrew., and Urban, Silke. (2002). Verb-particle explorations . Mouton de Gruyter. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mWb6tNUxZ0kC&oi=fnd&pg=PA67&dq=autonomy+in+syntax&ots=edKLUfmIKx&sig=tXLggj7fgBmRD4GFqnzxIO-UtPk#v=onepage&q=autonomy%20in%20syntax&f=false
 * The Talk page has not been utilized yet, but it does state that this article is a part of a Linguistics Wikiproject.
 * Overall, this source is extremely underdeveloped, but it shows potential. I think the introductory paragraph could serve as a useful tool for deciding what other topics to add, and what else needs to be elaborated on. :
 * Sources:
 * Croft (1995) Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics, in Language Vol. 71, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 490-532
 * Spinelli, David. (2022, November 22). What does the autonomy of syntax mean? A neurolinguistic and cognitive philosophical overview of syntactic-sematic issue. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365652506_What_does_the_Autonomy_of_Syntax_Mean_A_Neurolinguistic_and_Cognitive_Philosophical_Overview_of_the_Syntactic-Semantic_Issue
 * Dehé, Nicole., Jackendoff, Ray., McIntyre, Andrew., and Urban, Silke. (2002). Verb-particle explorations . Mouton de Gruyter. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mWb6tNUxZ0kC&oi=fnd&pg=PA67&dq=autonomy+in+syntax&ots=edKLUfmIKx&sig=tXLggj7fgBmRD4GFqnzxIO-UtPk#v=onepage&q=autonomy%20in%20syntax&f=false
 * Dehé, Nicole., Jackendoff, Ray., McIntyre, Andrew., and Urban, Silke. (2002). Verb-particle explorations . Mouton de Gruyter. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mWb6tNUxZ0kC&oi=fnd&pg=PA67&dq=autonomy+in+syntax&ots=edKLUfmIKx&sig=tXLggj7fgBmRD4GFqnzxIO-UtPk#v=onepage&q=autonomy%20in%20syntax&f=false

Option 5

 * Article title: "Linguistic Philosophy"
 * Article Evaluation:
 * This article is also a stub, meaning it is significantly underdeveloped.
 * The only thing that is written is a small introductory paragraph. The introductory paragraph does a good job of explaining what linguistic philosophy is. It also has a small note that clarifies that linguistic philosophy is not the same as the philosophy of language, which is helpful. This introduction is concise, but may need to be extended upon when more content is added.
 * The content is most likely not up-to-date because of the significant lack of information. There are a lot of important topics missing from this article. So far, no equity gaps have been brought up.
 * The article seems objective so far. There are no clear biases present, even when talking about controversial opinions in this field.
 * There is one source present. It is outdated (1967), but it a secondary source.
 * The writing so far is pretty high quality. It is easy to read and comprehend. I did not see any major grammatical errors.
 * There are no images.
 * The Talk page has not been utilized yet, but it does mention that this article is a part of two Wikiprojects: Linguistics and Philosophy.
 * Overall, this article is severely lacking in most of the identified criterion that make a good Wikipedia article. This article could be improved by just adding a lot more information and research.
 * Sources:
 * Scholz, Barbara C., Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ryan Nefdt, "Philosophy of Linguistics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
 * Peregrin, Jaroslav. (2012). Philosophy of Linguistics . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444517470500019
 * Davis, S. (1968). Principles of Linguistic Philosophy. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue Canadienne De Philosophie, 6 (4), 596-603. doi:10.1017/S0012217300034223
 * The Talk page has not been utilized yet, but it does mention that this article is a part of two Wikiprojects: Linguistics and Philosophy.
 * Overall, this article is severely lacking in most of the identified criterion that make a good Wikipedia article. This article could be improved by just adding a lot more information and research.
 * Sources:
 * Scholz, Barbara C., Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ryan Nefdt, "Philosophy of Linguistics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
 * Peregrin, Jaroslav. (2012). Philosophy of Linguistics . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444517470500019
 * Davis, S. (1968). Principles of Linguistic Philosophy. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue Canadienne De Philosophie, 6 (4), 596-603. doi:10.1017/S0012217300034223
 * Scholz, Barbara C., Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Geoffrey K. Pullum, and Ryan Nefdt, "Philosophy of Linguistics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
 * Peregrin, Jaroslav. (2012). Philosophy of Linguistics . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444517470500019
 * Davis, S. (1968). Principles of Linguistic Philosophy. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue Canadienne De Philosophie, 6 (4), 596-603. doi:10.1017/S0012217300034223