User:Jpp-91/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.


 * Morphome
 * I'm a student who is studying Linguistic syntax analysis.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead article does a satisfactory job in relating the definition and mechanics regarding the topic content. The lead briefly gives examples that are presented in understandable and approachable terms for people that are unaware of the content. The lead doesn't present any extra information and is concise to its related content.

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * All the content is relevant to the topic. The content covers various classifications of morphemes, as well as briefly covering the mechanics in which morphology is analyzed. and With further inspection of the talkpage, one could see that it is still being reviewed. Overall, the content is very thorough and well written.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is neutral, however, the lead paragraph does come off a little amateurish and a bit convoluted. I found no stances on the subject that could be overly bias or leaning to a particular position. I see no viewpoints that are presented with more importance than another. The all overall framing is very neutral and keeps the reader in the middle ground of the content viewpoints.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Two of the links work and are relatively recent, and or still relevant. However, link 2 and 4 both lead to dead PDF links.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is written well enough with minor complaints. I do feel like perhaps that inflectional and derivational morphemes could have been a little more clear. There are no errors in grammar and spelling. The article does a fine job at organized the content into more comprehensible terms, with the placement of which classification they show present first.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * There is no images presented in the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The talkpage shows that the article appears to need attention. It seems that most users in the discussion think the article should be more clear in its definitions. The talkpage was last updated on august 2019.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is adequate. There are no major errors in terms of grammar or spelling however it does come off a little amateurish and a bit vague. The most it has going for it would be the organization. The article does a great job presenting its contents in digestible bites. I would agree with the talkpage participants and work on the definitions to some of the classification categories like that of Inflectional. I feel like the article is underdeveloped, but just needs some kinks ironed out and it would be fine.

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: