User:Lingshwn/sandbox/lexicography

Lexicography

 * The article's grade is a C and it is rated as Top-importance.
 * I believe each fact is referenced with a reliable source, however, the references that are cited are a bit unclear. I've clicked the links and the website for the citations is difficult to navigate. Moreover, most of the website is in Greek. Additionally, aside from the etymology portion of the article, the rest of the sections do not include hyper-citations. And after reading the article, I do believe everything is relevant. It makes a clear distinction between the different types of lexicography, includes information about the interchangeability between lexicography from lexicology, and information about the etymology of 'lexicography'.
 * Some of the statements, I feel, fringe on being a bit biased. For example, the opening line of the article is "lexicography is divided into two separate but equally important groups". I believe that a sentence such as "Lexicography is typically divided into two separate groups, and they are:" would be better. Although I see the importance of stating that both lexicography and lexicology are equally important fields, I believe it unintentionally implies that one field is better than the other. And though the article does provide a brief statement about the debate between lexicography and lexicology, I think it should give definitions of the two terms before doing so. It will create a better argument. Additionally, giving a brief history about lexicography might also aide in strengthening this article.
 * Most of the information, or at least the information that is cited, derives from the same authors. The information that is presented on the actual article appears to be neutral. However, I cannot locate the cited information in the references themselves. And as stated before, the links that are cited are difficult to navigate. Most of the website is in Greek and clicking throughout the website does not lead to more useful information. Moreover, using information from the same authors may influence the author of the article to take on particular positions about lexicography. But in basing my observations on the Wikipedia article, I do believe the references are neutral.
 * For the most part, I think the article does a good job at balancing the information it presents. However, I do think that the etymology section, and topics that are similar to the subject, are underrepresented. The section for etymology is very short compared to the rest of the sections. As such, the article would greatly improve by including a section of the history of lexicography. Including this section would give a the reader a better understanding of the lexicographic field as a whole.
 * The citation links do work, however, it is unclear where a large part of the article comes from. As mentioned previously, the links lead to a website that is largely written in Greek. This makes it difficult for readers who are unfamiliar with Greek to navigate the website. I cannot be entirely sure whether or not the author of the article is plagiarizing because of the language barrier.
 * The first issue listed on the Talk page pertains to 'theoretical lexicography' and 'lexicology'. The Wikipedia user discusses whether the term 'theoretical lexicography' is just another word for 'lexicology'; the user concludes that both terms denote the same subject. Upon comparing the definitions provided for 'theoretical lexicography' and 'lexicology', I do believe they are the same. There are more similarities than there are contrasts between the two subjects. Another user posed the question about merging different editions of Webster's Dictionary. Though I am not familiar with the different kinds of Webster's Dictionaries, I do agree with the user that merging them under the main article "Webster's Dictionary" would be helpful. It creates a more organized structure for the main article and avoids unnecessary article stubs. Lastly, another user suggested to including information about whether someone can obtain a degree (e.g. M.A, PhD.) in Lexicography. The user suggested this because of a statement in the article that said " it is now widely accepted that lexicography is a scholarly discipline in its own right and not a sub-branch of applied linguistics, as the chief object of study in lexicography is the dictionary (see e.g. Bergenholtz/Nielsen/Tarp 2009)". I agree that including information about degrees in lexicography would strengthen this statement.

The practice of lexicography is typically divided into two separate groups: [insert Practical Lexicography and Theoretical Lexicography]

There is a large debate amongst linguists about including lexicography as a linguistic discipline and its interchangeability with the term "lexicology". Lexicography is generally defined as "the art and science of compiling dictionaries", while lexicology is defined as "the study of the lexicon or lexis". [Insert "some use..."] Moreover, many lexicographers, a person devoted to the practice of lexicography, are also linguists and may implement linguistic theories when compiling and organizing dictionaries.

History
Nearly 5,000 years ago, some of the first lexicographic-like documents were created by the Sumerians. The documents listed about 1,400 Sumerian words and their Akkadian translation equivalents. Similar types of lexicographic works continued throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages, during in which the oldest German document, Abrogans, was published in 765. In the 1500s, two developments had major impacts on lexicography: the printing press and the rise of modern languages (i.e. French, Italian, German). The printing press allowed for faster production of dictionaries and the lexicographic works of this time sought to standardize modern languages, which were hardly ever codified.