User:Islom arslonov/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

 * Linguistics
 * Lead Section: The introductory sentence is concise. It mentions what is later talked about throughout the article. Although the introduction is long, it does not go into too much detail, so it is good for a basic overview. It does not include information not present in the article. Content: The content of this article is relevant to the topic, whether is is talking about the history of linguistics. pragmatics, or something else, it all relates back to linguistics. The content appears to be up to date, it was last updated April 28th. It does not address an equity gap. There is no content that seems out of place. Tone and Balance: This article is neutral, evident from neutral language such as "most widely practiced" and "still remains significant" instead of biased words such as "has become useless since this time, when it was more popular". There does not appear to be a position to take in this linguistics article, so there is no evident bias in my opinion. No viewpoint seems over or under represented. It talks about history, what linguistics is about, and more. I did not feel myself pushed towards a certain way of thought while reading through this article.  Sources and References: Not all facts are backed up by a reliable source of information. The sources that are present, however, reflect available literature through university findings to textbooks and more. Not all of the sources are current, with some being as old as from 1990. Most of the sources seem to be pretty good in terms of quality as they are from recognizable places, such as Penguin Books. However, there are a couple links that just send you to wikipedia pages where it is also a reference and the more you click it, you eventually end up at a screen where you would have to buy the book in order to read it, which makes it a poor reference in my opinion since it is not easily accessible. Aside from that issue, the links I clicked seemed to work.  Organization and Writing Quality: This article is concise, clear and easy-to-read. It does not get so advanced that it is not understandable and provides more resources to get a more in depth understanding of the topic. I did not see any errors with grammar or spelling. I think the article is broken into nice topics, however, I am not sure if they should be mentioned more in the introduction or not because I do not understand the order that the topics present themselves in.  Images and Media: There are no images.  Talk Page Discussion: Some authors ask for clarifying questions as to what some topics, such as semantics, means. In addition to that, they discuss combing certain things under one topic or creating new sections. It is rated B-class and is a part of some wikiprojects. Wikipedia discusses this topic differently than we do in class as it provides everything at once, so you can either go through it at your own speed or skim to what you need. Going to class makes this information much more easy to digest.  Overall Impressions: This article seems to be good, but some of the section topics are confusing. For example, instead of "History of Linguistics", one section is called "Historical Linguistics" and is in the same space as types of linguistics. However, it is not a type, it is talking about linguistics' origins. With that being said, the writing in this article is very strong as it is easy to understand. This article can be improved by doing through the sources and maybe updating the old ones and getting rid of the ones that are hard to trace back to an actual source. In addition to that, more sources need to be added to back up what is being said. The article is well-developed.
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/26570775
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/26356759
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/26570775
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/26356759

Option 2

 * Morphology (Linguistics)
 * This article has a C rating. I feel as if the first paragraph of the introduction is concise and strong. From there, it gets into the details of morphology, examples included, which I believe should be put aside for another section. The history is also incredibly short. Some of the sources are from the 1930's and 1940's, so some more modern sources could be added. At the end, it explains the basic of a language, and it seems more like an introduction to that language than actual examples of morphology. The tone, however, is neutral and the wording is concise.
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/26570773
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/26356760
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/26570773
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/26356760

Option 3

 * Semantics
 * The introductory sentence is concise. However, that is the entire introduction. I feel as if an introduction to the subtopics would be helpful as well. The wording is concise and the tone is neutral. It addresses lots of different subtopics. The sources seem to be up to date and relative to the topic at hand. It has a C rating.
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/26570776
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/20117146?searchText=semantics&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dsemantics&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A4fb85175e969be8600b34181ee1d1e93
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/26570776
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/20117146?searchText=semantics&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dsemantics&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A4fb85175e969be8600b34181ee1d1e93

Option 4

 * Variety (Linguistics)
 * This article has an S rating. The introduction is not concise, but provides lots of a new information without enough explanation so it feels overwhelming. It says that variety and isolect is the same thing, but there is a separate category to talk about isolects in the article, which also adds to the confusion. For some long paragraphs, there is only one source, so more sources could be used to strengthen the article. It also includes direct quotes by a certain person without explaining what makes the person qualified to talk about the matter.
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/30027950?searchText=variety%20in%20linguistics&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dvariety%2Bin%2Blinguistics&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Ae2850afb5b9e72b2dd3597bca43038b7
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1tqx9wz?turn_away=true&searchText=linguistical%20variety&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dlinguistical%2Bvariety&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A4802cf95a236fe6343886a871310d4fb
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/30027950?searchText=variety%20in%20linguistics&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dvariety%2Bin%2Blinguistics&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Ae2850afb5b9e72b2dd3597bca43038b7
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1tqx9wz?turn_away=true&searchText=linguistical%20variety&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dlinguistical%2Bvariety&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A4802cf95a236fe6343886a871310d4fb

Option 5

 * Tone (Linguistics)
 * This article has an S rating. It does not have enough sources to back up what it is saying and has a warning for not writing in a neutral tone. Some sections only have a sentence of information that appears more like a note to an author than something a reader could understand. In addition to that, there is a lot of focus on examples, but it gets to be overwhelming as the languages don't always relate back to what it means about tone. The best sources to add to this would be ones that have more technical information instead of example information.
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/1263953?searchText=linguistical%20tone&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dlinguistical%2Btone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A4815641ad2790ee4c5be64479af88827
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/850881?searchText=linguistical%20tone&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dlinguistical%2Btone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A4815641ad2790ee4c5be64479af88827
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/1263953?searchText=linguistical%20tone&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dlinguistical%2Btone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A4815641ad2790ee4c5be64479af88827
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/850881?searchText=linguistical%20tone&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dlinguistical%2Btone&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A4815641ad2790ee4c5be64479af88827