User:Miashang4/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: Linguistic universal
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * this relates to our class discussion, particularly to the Evans and Levinson article we read

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead includes a concise introductory sentence that gives a basic definition of linguistic universal. However, it fails to briefly describe the article's major sections; it actually doesn't even mention the terminology distinction discussed later on or the semantic universal. The lead also mentions Greenberg, but he nor his contributions are explored further in the article. To its credit, the lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant and as far as I know, up-to-date. There could be more information included in general, such as more examples of commonly proposed or accepted universals or perhaps the relationship between language universals and Universal Grammar.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall tone of the article is neutral, but I don't think it completely offers a balanced view of the subject. In a way, it seems to favor those who propose and support the existence of universals, which is most controversial when it comes to absolute universals. Evans and Levinson, for example, claim that there are no absolute unrestricted universals, but this article gives the illusion that there is consensus in the field concerning this matter - a consensus that favors the existence of this type of universal. I don't see this as necessarily trying to persuade the reader, but is perhaps just a case of missing information, or a lack of familiarity with the literature.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
I don't think the information is cited in the text as frequently as needed. Interestingly, there are only eight references but a much more extensive list of sources. The sources are decently thorough, but perhaps are not representative of alternative points of view. This may be related to how current the sources are - it would be helpful to include information from some more recent pieces of work. The link appear to work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is concise, clear, and easy to read. There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed, and the article is also well organized into distinct sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
Not applicable, as there are no images on this page.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations behind the article discuss some of the concerns I've raised as well as ask further questions about Chomsky and UG; some are also questioning the validity of the examples of universals and some of the terminology discussed. This article of two WikiProjects: Wikiproject Linguistics and Wikiproject Language. They both rated the article as start-class on the quality scale. The Talk page more closely resembles are class discussions than the article itself, mostly because the Talk pages explores the ongoing debates instead of simply representing false consensus.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
I think this article is a good start, but could use further elaboration and refinement. One strength is its conciseness; another is distinguishing terminology because it's definitely important with this subject. Something that could be improved, however, is to edit the terminology section to reflect how the terms are most often used in the field (typology); perhaps this section could also included Greenberg's terms. Expansion on Universal Grammar and Chomsky could be worthwhile as well as a second look at the examples used. Most importantly, the article should more accurately represent the ongoing debate and changing status of universals as more research is conducted, rather than portraying a consensus that does not exist.

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: