User:J Rollei/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: Jabberwocky sentence
 * This article was chosen because of an interest in linguistics.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead of the article opens with a succinct sentence that introduces the topic of the text. It is followed by an overview of the main points of the article and also includes links to relevant topics. The lead is concise and does not include irrelevant information.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is relevant, but the article has not been updated in over three years, and the most recent study cited is from 2007. The article heavily uses linguistics jargon but does not include definitions of all the terms. Some of topics covered have links to other articles, but many of the terms used do not. Without having a background in linguistics, especially neurolinguistics, the text does not have much meaning to a layperson.


 * 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 article seems to be written from an unbiased standpoint. The information is sourced from scholarly journals. The article is factual, not persuasive.


 * 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 links in the article work. Though the studies referenced are both over ten years old, the neurolinguistics articles that are linked to in the main article have been recently updated. A recent study on the Jabberwocky effect in linguistics has been published ("Jabberwocky Parsing: Dependency Parsing with Lexical Noise" DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/h12q-k754), which could be a helpful and current addition to the article.


 * 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

The article is concisely written, well-organized, and free from typographical errors. Its clarity could be improved by either providing definitions for technical terms or including more links for the terms used.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article includes one image, which is an illustration by John Tenniel done for the Lewis Carroll poem "Jabberwocky." Text from the poem is incorporated below the illustration. The illustration is sourced from the Wikipedia Commons.


 * 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 article is rated as Start-Class. It is part of the WikiProject Linguistics. There are only two entries in the history of the article. As opposed to the articles covered in the training modules that had many contributors and long threads of discussions and edits, this article has very little going on behind-the-scenes and has very few edits done 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is rated Start-Class and has not been updated in over three years. It is concise and uses cited scholarly articles. Its lead is succinct and contains pertinent information. Updating the article with more recent studies would improve the article. Including definitions of the linguistics terms used or linking to definitions of the terms would better develop the text. The article overall seemed well-written and carefully proofed but could be strengthened by including newer studies and expanding definitions.


 * 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?

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: