User:MDI17/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Filler (linguistics)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I've chosen this article because I'm completing a research project on discourse markers and filler words, and feel like I can contribute to this page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead does include an introductory sentence, as well as brief descriptions of the article's major sections. It does, however, refer to information that is not present in the article such as filler words relation to discourse makers and placeholder names. The lead is rather disorganized and confusing, with no clear order or pattern. There is also a lack of citations for the last two sentences.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is relevant to the topic and appears to be up to date, but there is a clear gap in it; while the lead talks about how fillers are a type of formulaic language and it addresses both filler words such as um and uh as well as phrases such as you know, like, and so, it fails to address the difference in usage of the two. Most of the article discusses what types of words are being used, but fails to address modern usage.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral and doesn't appear to have any biased claims. There doesn't appear to try and persuade the reader in favor of a position, nor does it represent or underrepresent any viewpoints.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The facts are not all backed up by sources, especially secondary sources. They article really needs good sources, because they are not thorough, and not all of the links work; there are only three sources.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

While it does have three clear sections, it is not well organized and contains clear gaps. While the grammar and spelling appear to be okay, the sentence order and organization are scattered and disorganized with little to know supporting information.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article doesn't contain any images.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page contains very little, and none of it is backed up by real sources. There is a discussion about what words should be considered filler words, but it is all based on a matter of opinion and debating, not backed up by sources. It's rated Stub-class, which means that it contains little more than a dictionary definition and has a definite lack of sources. It's part of WikiProject Linguistics, to improve the wikipedia coverage of linguistics.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, the article is underdeveloped. It is a neutral, informative article, but it has a lack of sources, isn't complete, and could be better developed; it provides a dictionary definition, but little more.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: