User:Kuchar2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Language of mathematics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

We are focusing a great deal of our semester in Content Area Literacy Methods on academic vocabulary. This article is explicitly about language used in mathematics. I wondered if the article would be relevant to academic vocabulary on a pre-collegiate level. This article matters not only because the connection between mathematics and language is under-emphasized in American education, but also because students who have a grasp on academic vocabulary specific to mathematics are more confident about the coursework, more capable at grasping new material, and better prepared to justify their mathematical reasoning.

My preliminary impression is that the article is very short. It mostly lists examples of academic vocabulary specific to math with very little on the pedagogical value of the language. The section that does has a single, large quote by an electrophysiologist without context connecting it to the article. It IS relevant, but not following Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

LEAD SECTION

The lead section is very short and has a minor grammatical error. I like that it connects the language of mathematics to expressing results and lists examples. However, I think there is more to mathematical language than simply expressing results. I really like that they mention concision, precision, and lack of ambiguity as aspects of mathematical worked improved with mathematical language! I took abstract algebra in the Fall 2022 semester and it got down to the nitty-gritty of algebraic fundamentals. It became very clear to me just how necessary the correct academic vocabulary in math is to express correct mathematical statements.

CONTENT

The "functions" section has specific mentions of common language that aligns with the use in mathematical language, and of common language that differs from its use in mathematical language. This is an incredibly important component of academic vocabulary classification, so it should stay. The jargon note is also good as mathematicians do have some 'cutesy' terminology that is important to differentiate from its typical usage.

Symbols and math-specific neologisms (polynomial, for example) are mentioned. These are an important component of literal mathematical language, in the sense that it really is its own 'language' and can be translated to languages other than English.

TONE AND BALANCE

The tone seems good overall, but the "understanding mathematical text" section is lacking in neutrality. First of all, I would disagree with this section:

"For example the sentence  'a free module is a module that has a basis ' is perfectly correct, although it appears only as a grammatically correct nonsense, when one does not know the definitions of basis, module, and free module".

I would say that somebody who does not know mathematical language would not view this as 'nonsense', they just would not know what it means. The implication that it would appear as nonsense seems like a value judgement. It would be better to state that the meaning would not be understood or to eliminate this part entirely.

In addition, the quote provided is VERY long and is given no context by Wiki editors. It is simply placed within. It is related but not directly relevant to the topic at hand and it itself provides value judgments, such as:

"Also it differs from ordinary languages in this important particular: it is subject to rules of manipulation."

I would say that ordinary language is subject to rules of manipulation as well, so I do not know why this part was added in.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

The sources here are actually excellent, plentiful, peer-reviewed sources. However, almost none are cited in the article. More citations would be helpful. It feels like they were just thrown in.

ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY

Both of these are fine, but the lack of content makes it difficult to judge organization adequately. There is one grammatical error I see and it is minor. Otherwise the writing is clear and appropriate.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

There are no images and media besides the symbols listed in the features section, but this seems appropriate for the article. I cannot think of any media that would actually add anything to the page; you might be adding media just to add media.

TALK PAGE DISCUSSION

Someone proposed deleting the page in June of 2022. I would suggest adding to it rather than deleting it.

Someone suggested a type of book that might be good to reference in the article and is seeking such an example. This is an interesting way to approach a lack of citations that I really like. Another editor may know of an example but not have thought of bringing it into the article without the other Wiki editor's suggestion.

There is discussion over the legitimacy of some statements made earlier. This is similar to my concern of the tone and balance of the article. Someone even pulled out the term "original research" saying the article's writing betrayed the Wiki editor's personal connection of ideas. This is a no-no on Wikipedia; a valid source must connect the dots, not the Wiki editor.

The intro we see today is a result of a suggestion made by somebody who thought the previous intro was biased. I still think it could be improved on the basis of accuracy.

OVERALL IMPRESSION

The article could use work, but it is not a lost cause and I do think there is reason for it to exist. The only reason I can think of for it to not exist is if it is similar to another page already, but I did not see something similar when searching for articles.