User:Primeval-Seeker/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Philology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is a subject related to my course that I find interesting. Learning more about philology is important for understanding historical linguistics, so having a clear explanation of it available is also important. My first impression of the article was that it was informative but I would need to read most of the linked articles to understand it fully. There also seem to be a lot of direct quotes instead of paraphrasing.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: There is a clear introductory sentence and the lead is thorough but not too long or detailed. There isn't really a description of the main sections of the article.

Content: All of the content in this article seem to be related to the topic and useful for understanding the history and different branches of philology. The sections on each branch are a little bit uneven, as two of the sections of much longer than the other two, but they seem to include the necessary information for a good introduction to each branch.

Tone and Balance: The article does appear to be neutral and there aren't any claims that stood out to me as biased. Some claims came close, like the mention of a "harsh critique" and the use of some quotation marks to add negative emphasis, but I could be misreading the tone.

Sources and References: Most of the sources seem reliable, though there are two from online dictionaries that I'm not sure can be counted as academic. Although some of the sources are older, that makes sense for this topic. There are a couple brief paragraphs without citations, but it seems like they cover the same subjects as previous paragraphs, which do have citations. However, other sections (the Cognitive and Decipherment sections) don't have any citations, instead only linking to other articles. Speaking of links, they all seem to work.

Organization and Writing Quality: The organization of the article is clear and easy to follow and the writing itself is informative, though sometimes a bit hard to follow without knowledge of the terminology. A couple sentences could probably be rewritten to flow better. I didn't catch any errors.

Images and Media: There is one image in the article and it shows the cover of a book about philology. It does connect to the topic and the caption makes it clear what the image shows. The image is in the public domain, so it doesn't violate Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk Page Discussion: The people editing this page and contributing to the talk page all seem invested in the topic and in making sure the information in the article is all necessary, relevant, and correct. The article has been rated as a C-class article, so there is a banner at the top of the talk page asking for further improvements to be made. It is also part of the WikiProjects for Language, Linguistics, and History.

Overall Impressions: My overall impression is that this is a fairly average article. There is definitely room for improvement, but it's not bad. The wording of some sentences could be improved and more information could be added to some of the shorter sections, but the article does a good job of introducing the topic. Someone on the talk page suggested that a section about important figures in philology should be added, which might be useful for people wanting to do further research.