User:Lingleigh/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Origin of language

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it's a large topic within linguistics and within various disciplines of anthropology including biological and evolutionary anthropology. It's an important topic within both fields as it is related to theories of cultural and social development as well as migration patterns of early human ancestors. My impression of the article is that the bulk of information of the topic is in the theories section while the rest of the information related to the topic is given much smaller sections that are briefly covered.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section includes an introductory sentence, however, the sentence is not concise and specifically related to the information given in the article. The lead does not include a brief overview of the article's sections and instead highlights specific topics discussed. There is no unrelated information present in the lead section. I would say that overall the lead section is overly specific and starts the article by highlighting certain aspects and opinions of the theory of the origin of language (specifically the difficulty of study and the banning of study by the Linguistic Society of Paris).

Content

The content is relevant to the topic at hand and the information provided appears to be up to date. There doesn't appear to be any missing information, however, there is an emphasis placed on the theories developed and more information is lacking in other areas of the article. The article doesn't appear to highlight any historically underrepresented groups or ideas.

Tone and Balance

The article reads from a neutral point of tone but the information proved appears to lean towards certain ideas and theories. Western European ideas of language origin theories are heavily represented and although Muslim theories are mentioned it is brief and quickly brushed over. There is no overt persuasion present but the emphasis on certain theorists and ideas leads to a persuasive feeling within the article.

Sources and References

I would say that a lot of the facts provided have references but not all of them, however, there is a wide arrange of articles cited for the sections. The sources are current and range from at least the 1950s to 2020. There is a wide array of authors cited for the information provided in the article. Most of the references cited appear to be from academic journals and peer reviewed sources. The links to the references and other links within the article are functioning and lead to the intended web page.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well-written with no detectable grammatical errors or spelling mistakes. It is mostly written in a professional tone with only slight inclinations towards a persuasive attitude towards particular ideas.

Images and Media

There are relatively few images used within the article. The images used however appear to be within Wikipedia guidelines and are cited properly to avoid any copyright or plagiarism issues.

Talk Page Discussion

There are conversations regarding some grammatical issues specifically related to discussing a topic brought up in one of the references. There is also conversations about the suitability of certain references being included given the limited information available, especially for newer theories regarding the origins of language as well as some points of confusion for readers that have requested clarification. This article is rated as a C and is apart of several WikiProjects including primates, archaeology, evolutionary biology, anthropology and languages. In class we've mentioned the origins of language as related to the descent of the larynx and though this idea is briefly mentioned in the article this article primarily focuses on the different theories proposed by prominent individuals.

Overall Impressions

Overall the status of this article appears to be pretty low in terms of importance. The article has strong references and is for the most part clearly written. However, equal emphasis on all parts of the article could be better achieved as well as a better understanding of certain references that could lead to more concise writing. This article appears to be underdeveloped; it has a decent structure with sound information but overall could be improved in terms of clarity, equanimity, and conciseness.