User:PAS Duke/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: Auditory phonetics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article to evaluate because it deals with a specific aspect of linguistics and is part of the WikiProject Linguistics. It has been rated as Stub-Class and seems to need improvement, yet the topic is a relatively basic concept of linguistics and is thus in need of a higher quality article on Wikipedia.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there is an introductory sentence that effectively summarizes the definition of auditory phonetics.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? While the Lead does include a brief description of the major points related to auditory phonetics, there is only one major section in the article and the Lead does not clearly allude to or summarize what will be discussed in this section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the Lead includes information that is not present in the article. Rather than summarizing what is expressed in more detail in the article, it serves itself as the main discussion of what exactly auditory phonetics entails.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is almost as lengthy as the main section of the article itself, so it is overly detailed. Because the author of the article chose to use the Lead as a more substantial part of the article than just a summary, it lacks the conciseness of an effective Lead.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead is ineffective. While it has some merit in that its introductory sentence effectively summarizes the definition of auditory phonetics and is thus clear and purposeful, the Lead does not fulfill the role that it should in a Wikipedia article. The Lead does include a brief description of the major points related to auditory phonetics, but there is only one major section in the article. The Lead thus fulfills more than its intended purpose and does not clearly allude to or summarize what will be discussed in this one section. As a result, the Lead includes information that is not present in the article. Rather than summarizing what is expressed in more detail in the article, it serves itself as the main discussion of what exactly auditory phonetics entails. Ultimately, the Lead is almost as lengthy as the main section of the article itself, so it is overly detailed. Because the author of the article chose to use the Lead as a more substantial part of the article than just a summary, it lacks the conciseness of an effective Lead.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's content is somewhat relevant to the topic. The given information is pertinent to the field of auditory phonetics, but it is clear that some of the content that the article focuses on is less relevant than some of the areas that are lacking in the article. Thus, while the content provided is relevant, it is not an accurate portrayal of the level of relevance that should be attributed to the particular subtopics that are discussed.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the content is relatively up-to-date and has been recently edited.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is clearly missing content. The article focuses on auditory investigations and specific experiments while only giving passing references to other key areas that merit discussion. While the content more or less belongs within the category of auditory phonetics, it is not necessarily the most relevant information that should be included in an article of such a short length.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, the topic of auditory phonetics does not deal with an equity gap.

Content evaluation
The article's content is somewhat relevant to the topic, but it is significantly lacking. The given information is pertinent to the filed of auditory phonetics, but it is clear that some of the content that the article focuses on is less relevant than some of the areas that are lacking in the article. Thus, while the content provided is relevant, it is not an accurate portrayal of the level of relevance that should be attributed to the particular subjects that are discussed. In addition, there is clearly missing content; the article focuses on auditory investigations and specific experiments while only giving passing references to other key areas that merit discussion. While the content more or less belongs within the category of auditory phonetics, it is not necessarily the most relevant information that should be included in an article of such a short length. The content is, however, relatively up-to-date and has been recently edited.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral because it utilizes an objective tone, solely expressing facts and information rather than inserting personal opinions or subjective arguments.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? None of the claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The majority of the information is straightforward and therefore does not even take on a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? While there is not a particular viewpoint or perspective that is overrepresented or underrepresented, there is certainly some topics and information that is overrepresented, and some topics which are hardly mentioned at all. There does seem to be some bias in the inclusion and exclusion of information; instead of ensuring that all viewpoints and perspectives are delineated, the author chose to only focus on a few key concepts and experiments to represent the whole of auditory phonetics.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article is not persuasive in nature and does not attempt to make the reader adopt a certain position.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article derives some strength from its tone. The article is neutral because it utilizes an objective tone, solely expressing facts and information rather than inserting personal opinions or subjective arguments. Along the same lines, none of the claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The majority of the information is straightforward and therefore does not even take on a particular position. Therefore, the article is not persuasive in nature and odes not attempt to make the reader adopt a certain position. While the article has a good neutral tone, its balance is not as great. While there is not necessarily a particular viewpoint or perspective that is overrepresented or underrepresented, there is certainly some topics and information that is overrepresented, and some topics which are hardly mentioned at all. Whereas the language itself is not biased, there does seem to be some bias in the inclusion and exclusion of information; instead of ensuring that all viewpoints and perspectives are delineated, the author chose to only focus on a few key concepts and experiments to represent the whole of auditory phonetics.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, there is a significant lack of references in the article. There is a short list of references and bibliography at the end of the article, but the sources of information are not present in the article itself, so it is unclear what particular information in the article came from each source. In fact, not every paragraph, much less every sentence, even has a reference associated with it. In addition, one problematic sentence begins with the phrase "it has long been assumed," without making clear reference to who exactly has assumed the following information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources themselves are thorough and reliable, reflecting the available literature on the topic. However, the author does a poor job of utilizing the information in these sources and chooses seemingly random information from these sources the actually include in the article.
 * Are the sources current? The major sources are not completely outdated, but quite a few are from the 1990s. The article has, however, been recently edited to include more updated information. Nevertheless, the article could benefit from a few more current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There is a relatively diverse spectrum of source authors, considering that some of the sources are written in languages other than English. However, they do not include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources themselves could be improved, but overall they are thorough and reliable, reflecting the available literature on the topic. Quite a few sources are from the 1990s, but the major sources are not completely outdated and the article has been recently edited to include more updated information. In addition, there is a relatively diverse spectrum of source authors, considering that some of the sources are written in languages other than English. Some improvements could be made in that the source authors do not include historically marginalized individuals and that the article could benefit from a few more current sources, yet the sources themselves are relatively decent. Additionally, the links work. However, there is a major problem in the way that these sources are referenced. Not only does the author do a poor job of utilizing the information in these sources and chooses seemingly random information from these sources to actually include in the article, but there is also a significant lack of references in the article. There is a short list of references and bibliography at the end of the article, but the sources of information are not present in the article itself, so it is unclear what particular information in the article came from each source. In fact, not every paragraph, much less every sentence, even has a reference associated with it. One problematic sentence begins with the phrase "it has long been assumed," without making clear reference to who exactly has assumed the following information.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Overall, the article is not well-written. While it is concise, it is in fact too concise. It is relatively easy to read, but because each fact is not fully explained, it becomes a bit confusing and unclear.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The article does not have any blatant spelling errors. There is a sentence that is grammatically confusing, which states, "In doing so, the phonetic articulation, Sound movement, accent strength and quantity." It is hard to make sense of what this sentence is trying to convey because of the grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is not well-organized; there is only one section that conveys a major point of the topic, but the rest of the information is unnecessarily packed into the Lead of the article, which makes the information a bit scattered and harder to follow.

Organization evaluation
The article has poor organization. The article is concise, but it is too concise. Similarly, while it is relatively easy to read, it becomes a bit confusing and unclear because each fact is not fully explained. The article does not have any blatant spelling errors, but there is a sentence that is grammatically confusing, which states, "In doing so, the phonetic articulation, Sound movement, accent strength and quantity." It is hard to make sense of what this sentence is trying to convey because of the grammatical errors. The poor organization of the article is most evident in the fact that there is only one section that conveys a major point of the topic, but the rest of the information is unnecessarily packed into the Lead of the article, which makes the information a bit scattered and harder to follow.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does not include any images, but it includes a chart comparing the physical parameters of sound to the corresponding auditory perception.
 * Are images well-captioned? No, the chart is not captioned at all.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? It seems that the chart was made by the author, so it should adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No; there are no actual images and the chart seems to be placed arbitrarily without a clear transition between the chart and the text.

Images and media evaluation
The article lacks effective use of images and media. The article does not include any images, but it does include a chart comparing the physical parameters of sound to the corresponding auditory perception. It seems that the chart was made by the author, so it should adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Although there is a chart, it is not captioned at all and it seems to be placed arbitrarily without a clear transition between the chart and the text. Considering that there are no actual images, the article could be improved by the inclusion of photos or diagrams to make the article more visually appealing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk page indicates that a large concern of Wikipedia contributors is that the article is not fully representative of auditory phonetics, so users have suggested that some of the information be moved into a different category. The major concern on the talk page is that the article is in great need of expansion. On the talk page, users have indicated that since auditory phonetics is one of the main sub-disciplines of phonetics, it deserves a longer and more comprehensive article on Wikipedia.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as Stub-Class and High-importance and is part of WikiProject Linguistics.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have talked about auditory phonetics only briefly in terms of mentioning it as a kind of phonetics, but most of our discussion of phonetics thus far has been focused on articulatory phonetics. Therefore, Wikipedia discusses this topic more in depth and goes into some of the key features of auditory phonetics.

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated as Stub-Class and High-importance and is part of WikiProject Linguistics. It is clear that the article is Stub-Class because the talk page indicates that a large concern of Wikipedia contributors is that the article is not fully representative of auditory phonetics, so users have suggested that some of the information be moved into a different category. The major concern of the talk page is that the article is in great need of expansion. On the talk page, users have indicated that since auditory phonetics is one of the main sub-disciplines of phonetics, it deserves a longer and more comprehensive article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia discusses this topic differently from the way we talked about it in class, mainly because we have talked about auditory phonetics only briefly in terms of mentioning it as a kind of phonetics, but most of our discussion of phonetics thus far has been focused on articulatory phonetics. Therefore, Wikipedia discusses the topic more in depth and goes into some of the key features of auditory phonetics.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article's overall status is relatively poor. While there are some good features of the article, it needs a lot of improvement, mainly due to the fact that it is short and does not adequately cover the breadth or depth of auditory phonetics. As the talk feature discusses, the article needs to be expanded, especially since it is a major topic within linguistics. Another major problem with the article is that it does not include in-text references, making it unclear where each fact comes from.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article's main strength is that it adopts a neutral tone and does not attempt to persuade the reader. In addition, there is a strong basis of reliable, relatively current sources that could provide good information for an expansion of the article.
 * How can the article be improved? The article could benefit from better organization, better references, and further development of ideas.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is very underdeveloped. Many ideas are not fully explored, and the author will refer to a certain concept without giving a full explanation. For instance, a sentence in the article states, "Georg von Békésy has put forward a theory that shows how language is processed in the ear and in the human brain," but there is no further discussion of what exactly this theory suggests about language processing. The article needs to be developed more completely to include more than just one section to ensure that the full scope of auditory phonetics is discussed.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is relatively poor. While there are some good features of the article, it needs a lot of improvement, mainly due to the fact that it is short and does not adequately cover the breadth or depth of auditory phonetics. As the talk features discusses, the article needs to be expanded, especially since it is a major topic within linguistics. Another major problem with the article is that it does not include in-text references, making it unclear where each fact comes from. The article is very underdeveloped. Many ideas are not fully explored, and the author will refer to a certain concept without giving a full explanation. For instance, a sentence in the article states, "Georg von Békésy has put forward a theory that shows how language is processed in the ear and in the human brain," but there is no further discussion of what exactly this theory suggests about language processing. The article needs to be developed more completely to include more than just one section to ensure that the full scope of auditory phonetics is discussed. However, the article does have some strengths. The article's main strength is that it adopts a neutral tone and does not attempt to persuade the reader. In addition, there is a strong basis of reliable, relatively current sources that could provide good information for an expansion of the article. The article could still benefit from better organization, better references, and further development of ideas.

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: