User:Shena Murphy/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
A link to the Brown Corpus article

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because of its significance to and many references in class and wanted to actually look over the wiki article we referenced for myself.

Evaluate the article

 * Lead section:
 * The opening section of the Brown Corpus article is robust in its introduction. It includes a solid introductory paragraph explaining the compilation of data in the corpus, the time in which it was compiled, and the university the work was done at.
 * The lead also does include an overview of the sections in the article and excludes things that are not mentioned in the rest of the page without doing into too much detail.
 * Content:
 * The content of the article remains relevant to the topic throughout, as well as being up-to-date with the most recent edit being made by myself on the talk page.
 * I have not observed content that is missing or that does not belong in the article.
 * I do think it's quite cool that there is a table that links to and lists many things pertaining to corpus linguistics specifically, at the bottom. I believe this doesn't hold inherent bias, but rather draws attention specifically to an area of study in direct relation to what the Brown Corpus seeks to do.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Tone and Balance:
 * The article is neutral, though I'm not sure how possible it is to be biased against a corpus, so maybe it has an innately positive bias... but there are no explicitly biased claims that lean toward a particular viewpoint. No viewpoints seem to be over or underrepresented, though I do wish there were more links tied to linguistic studies and research done through the database rather than the samples provided from the corpus itself, though the historical view provided is quite appreciable.
 * Some of the links seem to lead to minority and fringe viewpoints, though most are productive in leading to other corpuses, other universities, and other research on the topics of databases, collections of corpora, and research conducted.
 * It seems that the article doesn't persuade people one way or another, though it doesn't persuade them to curiosity in linguistics as much as I anticipated in my own assumptions.
 * Sources and references:
 * All facts seem to be backed up by reliable, thorough sources which reflect the available research pertaining to the topics.
 * The sources are current, and are written by a diverse array of editors, likely including people from our class (I would not be surprised, considering that table I mentioned earlier)!
 * The links work, and lead to other articles with reliable sources, and to peer-reviewed journals as well as other
 * Organization and Writing Quality:
 * Is the article well-written because of its concise, clear, and easy to read nature.
 * I don't see any grammatical errors; grammar doesn't distract from the information in the article.
 * The page is broken down into a couple of sections that are organized clearly. It almost feels too informational, which I guess is a good thing rather than something that is lacking, though it feels that way at first glance.


 * Images and Media:
 * The article includes a well-captioned image of Brown university, and a table about corpus linguistics - both of which enhance the page's information.
 * The image is cited and has a link to more information about the university and is indeed visually appealing.
 * Talk page and discussion:
 * I've not yet trained myself to check this in terms of editing and testing integrity, but the talk page proves to be quite clear and civil.
 * The convos going on are few, and don't really make sense to me... I think that it's a bit choppier considering wikicode (though I didn't see much explicit code...?) which is quite different than how we discuss in class or even in the article, and it is quite hard for me to comprehend because what I see is mostly notes on what's been edited rather than a timeline and clear presentation of which part was changed and from what.
 * I edited one of the editor's comments, and I'm not sure of the validity of my edit, so I may undo it ... lol
 * The article's rating is --- something I actually wasn't able to find... I'm not sure if I must log out of wiki to see it, or something like that!? Not sure if it's part of any WikiProjects either.


 * Overall impressions:
 * The article's status is good, and it is strong because of the clear and summative nature of the info.
 * It can be improved with more corpus linguistics/linguistics research related things - pr at least I'd like to see that because of my bias toward those things and involvement in this class!


 * Maybe someone more experienced in analysis, linguistics, corpora, and editing Wiki articles may better be able to tell, but I can't really say whether its well-developed, or underdeveloped as a Wiki article. I feel that there are always improvements to be made, especially in an open corpus/database like Wikipedia, though it is already amply supplied by thorough info and good sources.