User:Kuchar2/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Language of mathematics
 * Language of mathematics
 * Article Evaluation
 * User:Kuchar2/Evaluate an Article


 * Sources

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Letters to a Young Mathematician


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article only contains a lead section. Even if the article remains sparse, it may be appropriate to create structure with subsections such as 'plot summary' (as the book is fictitious) and 'critical reception'. Both of these are included in the lead section without being put into separate sections, likely because it is so short.
 * The article has a neutral, balanced tone. The critical reception section includes a variety of reviews from formal reviewers for journals like Nature (journal), some positive, some negative, some in the middle. The description of the inspiration for the book and the brief summary do not make any subjective judgments about the book, nor do they offer original perspectives on the Wikieditor's part. The writing quality is excellent.
 * The article is lacking images and media. I think a picture of either the first or the most recent published edition of the book would be appropriate in a side section along with other publication data.
 * The references are good, but are only for the critical reception section. It might be good to link to worldcat or another webpage about the book that is not a review. As of now, all citations are somebody's opinion of the book.
 * The page has no Talk section, so nobody has yet shown interest in adding more to this page.


 * Sources
 * https://www.worldcat.org/title/62118399

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Parent function


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article also only has a lead section. The only reference is to a video explanation of parent functions on a math help video series website, a private company, intended for students of mathematics. The writing quality is average. Links are not properly embedded in the article. The talk page has a brief discussion on a problem I also saw: 'parent function' is ill-defined within the article and is repeatedly referred to as being the 'most simple' version of a function. This is not mathematically precise and it is subjective. When mathematical precision is brought in later in the article, it seems thick on the jargon without reason. There are no images; I could see how a gif or video showing graphical comparisons between parent functions and functions that have been translated, rotated, dilated, etc. might be appropriate on this page. There is no organization in the article and it seems to jump between types of functions without clear reason or headings.


 * Sources
 * https://xronos.clas.ufl.edu/mac1140nowell/PrecalculusXourse/graphing/parentFunctions

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Glossary of mathematics


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article has a lead section and an alphabetical list of terms. However, the list is severely lacking in entries. The talk page is empty but shows a discussion in 2019 decided to keep rather than delete the article. The "see also" section indicates articles which are similar to this one; it is hard to tell how this page, List of mathematical jargon and Category:Mathematical terminology are that different from one another. The jargon page seems more related to terms that appear in non-math contexts but have specific math meanings, but the same could be said of many entries on this glossary page. The math terminology page is fleshed out, but as a category page, its major purpose is to link to other articles, not be a glossary itself. Still, it makes one wonder how meaningful this page is.
 * The writing quality is fine and the tone is balance, but the major issue is content. It is simply too sparse and chaotic to come across as an actual glossary of mathematics. For the article to stay, it should make a case for its existence relative to the aforementioned 2 articles AND be filled in more.
 * The only reference is a math encyclopedia with reliable editors, so that is a good source, but the entire page comes from it; individual entries did not get individualized citations. No entries have accompanying images.
 * I feel torn on how invested I could be in helping this article get on its feet, and how much work it would need to do so.


 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources