User:Nickho20/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:
 * Branching (Linguistics)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article after reading a section in Peter Elbow's Vernacular Eloquence that outlined branching sentences are their different forms. I think it's interesting to be able to choose a model with which to craft a sentence with.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there is a simple, informative lead sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not. They are outlined later.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead is quite concise.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is very concise, possibly too much so.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article explains the origin of, and difference between, right and left branching sentences.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the article was updated as recently as January 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There are lots of examples of sentence structures though the article could use a little more written explanation of these forms and how to form them.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, it reviews only grammar conventions of the English language.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. There isn't really an opportunity to take a stance on grammar anyways.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there is so opinionated information in this article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, only straightforward information and examples of sentence structures.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article works merely to inform people.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, many other pages and established linguists are referenced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, most of the sources are relevant and provide real information that adds to the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Many of the linked pages are present though the sources listed at the bottom of the page are not as current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, they mostly reference the work of older European linguists.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they do!

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part. I wish there was more writing, there are too many graphs I think.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, it is written well.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it is very well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are a lot of graphs and charts that help the author convey his/her point.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, each chart is explained directly underneath it.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images when clicked on say "Own work" following the authors name.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the whole page is very well organized.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most of the conversations are focused on the only irrelevant part of the article. There is good discussion but not about what the readers came for.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is not apart of any projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In class we learned about only right and left branching sentences but the article talks about a lot of other more complex structures as well as the history behind branching sentences.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall this is a strong article. It is informative and does in fact outline different sentence branching structures.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strengths are definitely in the graphics. They clearly display and solidify the concepts explained in writing. They are also quite plentiful.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I wish there was a little but more in writing. The graphics are helpful but and while there are explanations below, the author leaves a little too much for the reader to figure out on their own.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say its mostly complete. A little more explanation under each graphic and the article will be perfect.

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: