User:OliviaP-SLA/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: Lexicography
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It's relevant to the course and is relatively easy to read through due to its length

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The Lead concisely describes the topic, while relating it to the specific subfields of practical and theoretical lexicography. The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections, however the sections themselves aren't labelled in such a way that makes it easy to see these connections. The Lead includes a rather large section on theoretical lexicography but there is no overt section dedicated to the topic in the article. The Lead is fairly concise.


 * 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 article's content is relevant to the topic, if not sparse. It could definitely be updated, I can see in the edits the last major updates were in 2019. There is definitely content missing for the theoretical section. Does not deal with equity gaps.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral with no biased claims. There is no persuasion or focus on particular 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

There are six references in total, 4 of which are from the same source on the Greek-English lexicon, with a publication date from 1940 which is definitely not up to date. The links work but are sent to a very poorly formatted website that's in Greek.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

This article is relatively well written, it's easy to read but is just a bit on the empty side. No grammatical errors that I can see. Needs work on the sectioning.


 * 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

N/A There are no images in this article.


 * 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
 * This article is rated C-Class and is part of Wikiprojects Linguistics. The discussions in the Talk section are varied, most of which are asking about definitions that are given. They also discuss the problematic citations.


 * 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
 * The article needs more, and better sourcing. More information given for the theoretical side of lexicography. The introduction is very solid, I can tell a lot of information went into the Lead. The article is both underdeveloped and poorly developed.


 * 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?