User:Printy13/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Philology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article due to its relevance to linguistics and the study of historical language. My first impression is that the article is fairly well-written, but there may be too much information in the lead. Additionally, there are problems with having adequate references.

Evaluate the article
The first paragraph of the lead section provides a great preliminary overview of the topic. It is detailed, but not overly so. I find the rest of the lead section to be lacking in terms of detail and organization structure.

Here are some suggestions to improve the lead:


 * The lead should be developed further to give an overview of the major content sections of the article. I recommend a special focus on the branches of philology. The "In popular culture" section is not mentioned at all.
 * Some of the information in the lead is not included in the contents of the article. The history of the study of philology is only mentioned in the lead. Additionally, one part of the lead makes a point about why philology should be distinguished from linguistics in general. I recommend creating more content sections to cover these topics in more detail.

The contents of the article is adequate, but there is definitely room for improvement regarding the balance and relevance of the information.


 * The Etymology section is very large compared to the rest of the article. It may not be the most relevant information to include.
 * There is an imbalance of information in the Branches subsections.The Cognitive Philology subsection is underdeveloped compared to the other subsections. The Comparative Philology subsection is also underdeveloped, but needs less attention.

The article maintains a neutral point of view. It also does a good job of balancing opposing opinions, especially in the Etymology section.

This article has significant issues regarding sources and references.


 * To start, some of the links in the References section do not work or do not link to source listed. However, the sources listed are reliable and fairly current.
 * There are no citation in the Decipherment section, which is a significant issue.

In terms of organization and writing quality, this article is very well-written. I see no grammar or spelling errors, and the sections reflect the main points of the topic.

In terms of the quality of images and media, there is room for improvement.


 * The article only has one image, which is the cover of Indo-European Philology: Historical and Comparative by William Burley Lockwood (1969). This paper is not directly mentioned in the article, nor is it the most relevant text to the study of philology.

The Talk Page for this article is fairly lively. There was significant debate about the relevance and modern usage of the word "philology". Some editors thought the study is not distinct enough and should be merged with the linguistics article. I agree with many of the editors who said that philology is separate from linguistics.

My overall impression is that the article is underdeveloped, especially in the "Branches" section. Its strengths are the first paragraph of the lead and the etymology section. There needs to be more work done detailing the branches of philology and their relevance to the modern study.