User:Jtbuffit/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: Talk:Morphology (linguistics)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Morphology pertains to linguistics.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Somewhat, but it's a little misleading.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat, but some sections are left out.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, some parts about other languages, and phonics.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? For the most part, yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Some of the sources are, while others are older.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There may be more information about the topic overall that's needed.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Most, but not all.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, mostly.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? One, but there's no mention of it or its idea in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, but the placement seems random.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Mostly regarding restructuring or rephrasing the article to have clear and concise information.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's rated C-Class, and is in the scope of WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The information is very jumbled, and nobody can come to the conclusion of it being well written.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Rough for sure. There isn't enough cohesiveness/conciseness for it to make sense to an average reader, I think.
 * What are the article's strengths? The writing and explanations of certain topics.
 * How can the article be improved? The focus on morphology and what it actually is.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it's both underdeveloped and poorly developed, because it doesn't exactly stick to the specifics of morphology. There are times where it strays away and talks about other languages and their morphology, rather than what morphology actually is.

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: Talk:Morphology (linguistics)