User:Lingedit717/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
Article Evaluation
 * Article title
 * Necronym

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

The article's content is largely relevant to the topic, providing a relatively expansive, if brief, overview of the nature of the necronym and its uses in various cultures around the world; the article does, however, rather randomly begin to list various personalities of varying degrees of fame who were named after deceased relatives - this information, if it is to be kept, appears to me to warrant its own section.

Is it written neutrally?

The article appears to be fairly neutral, covering both ends of the spectrum of cultural attitudes apropos of necronyms - repeated use and prohibition - without apparent judgement; certain words as "incessant" may be replaced perhaps by others with lesser connotative strength.

Does each claim have a citation?

The article's major failing is its lack of citations; there is but a single reference for the entire article and thus all claims but one are united.

Are the citations reliable?

The sole citation seems to come from a decent source - a published magazine of essays and other works - but, for all its popular renown, the believer is not an academic journal or other scholarly font; I believe the addition of more formal academic works would bolster the article considerably.

Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?

The article tackles a number of cultural approaches, e.g., Japanese Buddhism, to the necronym, some of which are less well represented than others. Soviet Spy Ring
 * Sources
 * https://online.ucpress.edu/representations/article/doi/10.2307/2902933/82580/The-Necronym
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24906067.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A865e3f094b2a7f3983d4a32b38a22d31
 * https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1486474078049095&disposition=inline
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13576275.2020.1807923
 * https://www.nascar.com/news-media/2013/02/28/john-hunter-nemechek-15-carries-family-tradition/
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/4199959
 * https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=b2rCLYHjDMgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=forbidden+from+using+the+name+of+deceased+relative&ots=Wx-IfIDe8u&sig=SGI-ySa9ZHYEhNh-q0cCyxilu7M#v=snippet&q=deceased&f=false
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/29778787
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/at-last-the-truth-emerges-about-gordon-lonsdales-shadowy-life-1171736.html
 * https://grg.org/calmentmen1.html
 * https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2020.1807923
 * https://believermag.com/whats-in-a-necronym/

Option 2
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Article title
 * Idioglossia
 * Article Evaluation

The article's content is relevant to the topic insofar as it provides a cursory overview of the idioglossia but devotes undue and significant attention to instances of idioglossias rather than the specific features or technical background of the term.

Is it written neutrally?

The article is completely neutral, largely due to its brevity and list-centric structure.

Does each claim have a citation?

Only a single line is cited, that of the study regarding twins Sam and Ren McEntee; all other claims and examples alike are left without references.

Are the citations reliable?

The one source appears to be extremely reputable, coming from a peer-reviewed journal published by the Cambridge University Press.

Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?

The article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, though perhaps instances of idioglossia belonging to underrepresented media or populations may be found and included in the examples lists.

Sources
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1038593/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2036566/
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1975324/

Option 3
Article Evaluation
 * Article title
 * Linguistic philosophy

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

The article's content is pertinent to the topic, dichotomizing linguistic philosophy into two major viewpoints, but so lacking that little can be gained from the article.

Is it written neutrally?

The article is written neutrally, refraining from judging either major aforementioned viewpoint.

Does each claim have a citation?

Each claim has a citation, but it is important to note that there is really a single claim and a single reference listed.

Are the citations reliable?

The citation is extremely reliable - the sole source is an essay written by a renowned American philosopher published in a collection by the University of Chicago Press.

Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?

The article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
 * Sources

Philosophical Investigations

The Philosophy of Logical Atomism

Option 4
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Article title
 * Degreeting
 * Article Evaluation

The article is severely lacking in content, but what is there is relevant to the topic, explaining and providing an example of degreeting.

Is it written neutrally?

The article consists solely of a definition and an example and thus leaves no real room for bias.

Does each claim have a citation?

There are no references listed and thus no claim has a citation.

Are the citations reliable?

There are no citations.

Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?

The article does not tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.
 * Sources
 * http://ejournal.iainpalopo.ac.id/index.php/ideas/article/view/30
 * https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0-f6DAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA31&dq=degreeting+linguistics&ots=bHRZIFykyf&sig=QtO27pXbFGF1TeARyd6QAIR0Y1M#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=128765

Option 5
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Article title
 * Latinism
 * Article Evaluation

The article does a solid job of putting forth the various types of Latinisms and never diverges from the subject matter at hand.

Is it written neutrally?

The article remains neutral throughout, adopting a perpetually scientific, objective view of the topic.

Does each claim have a citation?

The article cites one of the three types of Latinisms and a claim from the lead but leaves the rest of the article without supporting references; additionally, the citation used in the lead is merely a dictionary entry from the Free Dictionary.

Are the citations reliable?

Both citations appear to be reliable, coming from an online dictionary that cross-references a number of other reputable sources and a Spanish scientific journal, but the nature of the first reference as an entry in the Free Dictionary means the reference itself is relatively privative apropos of useful information.

Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?

The article mentions briefly the role of Latinisms in Italian literature and has the potential to tackle further equity gaps, as Latinisms exist in a wide variety of languages, e.g., all Romance languages, from all sorts of backgrounds.
 * Sources
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/1310537430?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&imgSeq=1
 * https://search.proquest.com/docview/1296925566?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&imgSeq=1
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/44742172?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents