User:SGoens/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: Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/SFL
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article as the historical aspect of creating a system was interesting.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes: "Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is an approach to linguistics that considers language as a social semiotic system."
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead mentions "Dik's functional grammar", but does not go into depth as to who Dik is or how he contributed to the discussion. I googled the quoted text and found that Simon C. Dik was a Dutch linguist who was famous for developing the theory of functional grammar. My understanding was that the lead, or further in the article, these types of name/idea drops should be explained in further detail so that the reader does not have to explore beyond the chosen article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I found the Lead to be a good length with just enough detail to introduce a novice to the topic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content builds and explains the main topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, this article was created 3 August 2012 and has been kept up to date with frequent edits. In 2020 there have been 4 edits thus far.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Other than the aforementioned lack of explanation about Simon Dik, I found the article to have been flushed out in a meaningful way with information that was pertinent to the original discussion of SFL and Michael Halliday.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article is part of a series on Linguistics, so I would have to say no. Other than the hint that the article belongs to a greater body of work, I am unsure of where to find a more concrete answer.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, I found the article to be neutral and explanatory as to the subject matter.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the claims were historical in nature and explained in neutral terms.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * While the "Multidimensional semiotic system" and "The notion of system in linguistics" sections were of equal length, the last section - "System network in systemic linguistics" was much shorter.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article is historical in nature.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the facts that were discussed were backed up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not quite. The latest update to the reference was a source that was written in 2004, though Halliday passed away in 2018. I did not find within the article a statement regarding when Halliday stopped writing articles himself.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, all of the source material was based on the author who is the topic of the article - Michael Halliday.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is well written.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The word "organized" was misspelled several times throughout the article. As was the word "realized".
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is only one photo and that is of Michael Halliday.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I would say so, yes. The photo is off to the side of the Lead.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Under the 'View History' tab I found brief discussion points, but more revolved around the initial creation of this article.
 * Under the 'Talk' tab I found that the conversation was an ask and response for more clarification of a short detail heavy explanation that had originally been written. The request was for fresh eyes and a different perspective.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Yes: WikiProject Linguistics
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article focused more on Halliday's creation of the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) approach.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article has been rated as B-Class and rated as Mid-importance.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article was clear and precise surrounding the main topic.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I would suggest that a link be added for readers to explore who Simon C. Dik was, as the other names had links associated with them the first time they were mentioned in the article.
 * I would also suggest that the article have a "for dummies" section to make the overall concept crystal clear without having to untangle terms or feel as though one is introduced in the middle of the conversation.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I thought this article was well-developed but could update the above bullets.

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: Talk:Systemic functional linguistics