User:JBalcita/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: "Connectionism" (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article on connectionism because it is a major concept that our class has been studying.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 main issue with the lead is that it only provides a broad description/contextualization of the topic of connectionism. It does not include information on any subtopics that are otherwise touched upon throughout the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 article appears to cover a decent range of major, relevant subtopics under connectionism, but it can certainly be expanded. For example, it could include information on how connectionism is applied in various fields (e.g. linguistics) and more information on opposing views.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
There is limited information on major critiques on connectionism itself. However, the information that is otherwise provided is conveyed in a neutral, unbiased, non-persuasive way.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
The links provided in the Notes/References section do indeed work, and most of them are links to relatively current peer-reviewed journals or scholarly texts. The number of in-text citations, however, appears limited; there are a fair number of indications of a "[citation needed]." In addition, some subsections do not even include any citations, and there are some broad generalizations that are unbacked (e.g. "Connectionists are in agreement...").

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?

Organization evaluation
The article does not take on a scholarly tone/diction that would probably be expected, but it is clear to read and concisely conveys relevant information. It is broken down into logical subsections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
There is one image of a very basic neural network with a hidden layer (as noted in the caption). There are no other media that could serve to illustrate other major subtopics/concepts included in the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 article is part of the WikiProjects for Cognitive science, Philosophy, and Systems; most of the given ratings are C-class, Mid-Importance. The main discussions between users on the Talk page involve which subtopics to include (such as those outside the field of linguistics as discussed in class) in the article as well as debates over general terminology and sources.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
The article is rather underdeveloped and could be expanded upon (e.g. as noted earlier, they could include more information on opposing viewpoints). There appear to be thorough descriptions for each subtopic included, yet they do not seem to be backed by any sources.

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: