User:Serialsgirl/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Language

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Philosophy of language has a lot to do with the library profession. Media librarians and other information professionals work with all has some type of language and we use specialized languages to describe those resources to others.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

For the most part, I think this is a good article but it can use some improvements. The header is a decent overview of the article without repeating the information in the rest of the article. I think the article is written in a balanced tone with most sections getting the same amount of space other than some sections that are denser topics and need to be larger. The section on truth however is very small and is not cited. Someone else already pointed out that this section needs a citation, I think it could also benefit from being expanded. If it cannot be expanded it might be better off being cut or incorporated elsewhere. One part that I think is worded badly is section Social interaction and language, paragraph 2 which begins, "Some have questioned whether or not conventions are relevant to the study of meaning at all." This section should contain names of those who disagree instead. There is only one image of a chart and I do think more images might add to understanding of a topic that is somewhat dense and a bit harder to relate to everyday life. The page is not edited often. It was first published in 2007 and the talk page only has conversations about items every couple of years. 2007 saw the most edits, then they dropped off to just a few per year and some years are missed entirely. While there are a few encyclopedias listed as references, most references seem to be books and scholarly articles. They include more recent sources too which means editors are keeping up on developments in the field. I think the "see also" links throughout add to the piece by showing readers where it connects to other disciplines.