User:Jellybean745/Evaluate an Article

Pragmatics Page Evaluation

 * Pragmatics: Pragmatics
 * I chose this article over the others that were available because I wanted to evaluate something that this course covers extensively. This course is covering everything I could possibly want to learn about pragmatics. If this article is an articulated article, I would be able to use it as a reference to go back on when I am studying in the future.

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence doesn't concisely describe the article's topic, but the last sentence of the lead does. The description is not brief and presents almost too much information and detail. However, all the information specified in the lead is apparent throughout the article, making it suffice in that regard.

Content evaluation
The content within the article is all somehow relevant to the topic of Pragmatics. The last edit of the article was January 2020, so I would say this article is up-to-date. I would also like to point out that all the content within the article of Pragmatics has content that makes the overall idea of Pragmatics more defined. Nothing is missing from the article from what I can envision.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article comes from a neutral, non-biased perspective. All areas of the article are well-balanced and thoroughly explained. There seems to be no persuasion/bias in any fashion.

Sources and references evaluation
The article used independent sources that are reliable, current, and appear to not have any bias. The links that I clicked on and evaluated work and are thorough. However, some subtopics (areas of interest, origins of the field, referential uses of language) appear to not have any proper citations or any citations for that matter.

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written with many good examples and points listed. But I wouldn't say the article is easy to read for someone who doesn't have some knowledge of linguistics. The organization is very prominent and apparent through the whole article. Each subtopic is broken down into sections with their own corresponding title.

Images and media evaluation
There only appears to be one photo within the article, and even then, the photo doesn't really enhance any points or examples listed. The image, from what I can see, is cited properly, but there is only a reference to a book with an ISBN. The image that is also posted on the article is posted again throughout the text and isn't really adding any visual appeal to the article.

Talk page evaluation
The conversations in the talk page seem to not be recent. There were also people who tended to not leave their signature after their commentary, and changes within the articles or even responses in the the talk page were added years after the original remark. There is some organization, but some of it seems to be all over the place, as well as no responses in some parts.The way we discussed pragmatics in class seems to parallel some aspects of this talk in the sense of using multiple examples and discussing each one individually.

Overall impressions
Overall, I think the article is well-rounded, but seems to be missing a few details that can really solidify the page entirely. For example, some sources seem to not be cited correctly or not at all within some categories, but there does seem to be an overwhelming amount of examples, descriptions, and relatable content that connect to this page. I would consider the article moderately developed, as it is still missing citations, and there does seem to be an unnecessary amount of length in some areas, and vagueness in others.