User:Thaonhiphan/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: Truth condition
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Truth condition is an important term in Pragmatics. It's necessary for linguists to evaluate and improve the article about that technical term on Wikipedia. In that way, everyone can easily search for the term, read the content contributed by linguists, and gain more knowledge in that field. There are some elements showing that the article needs improvement.

Lead
Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The article does include a concise and clear introductory sentence to describe the topic. However, it does not have a Table of Content to introduce major sections of the article. There are some more details described in the second and third paragraphs. Nevertheless, those details should not be in the Lead Section. The Lead includes unnecessary information, but lacks important parts to be clear and concise enough for the readers. In other words, the article has an incomplete and ill-formed Lead Section that needs to be improved.

Content
Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Although the article's content is relevant to the topic, it is not enough for the readers to have an insight into "truth condition". It's hard to say whether the content is up-to-date or not since it only has three sources for us to verify. The article does need more detailed, well-developed, and well-supported content. Also, the content must be divided into major sections to make it easier for the readers to follow. More reliable sources should be cited. Different aspects of the topic and all points of view about "truth condition" should be introduced in the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does not include different viewpoints supported by reliable sources. Therefore, we can't say that the article is neutral. It tends to favor an argument, which is described to be "popular" in the third paragraph. Other arguments or possible controversial theories are not put forward. We only see one side of the topic, not other sides. The article seems to help readers understand the writer's knowledge about the topic, instead of providing readers an objective method to access the knowledge themselves.

Sources and References
Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources and references are what the article needs. There are only three sources cited in the Notes Section. Only two of them are cited in text. There is a lot of information mentioned, but we don't have reliable sources to verify. When checking the sources, I can only access one of them (the second one with doi number). We can also see the warning banner at the top of the article, which shows us the lack of good sourcing in the article.

Organization
Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The organization is not good at all. The article is not divided into any major sections with appropriate subheadings to follow. We can't tell the difference in content among paragraphs. In each paragraph, the structure is not well-developed. There are some grammatical errors. Also, the sentences are not clear to understand thoroughly. The examples are not separated into different paragraphs. It's very hard for readers to follow and understand the content of the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No visual aids like diagrams, tables, or images are added to the article to enhance understanding of the topic.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
People use the talk page to explain what they edited, added, or removed in the article. Also, they put comments on the articles to point out its strengths and weaknesses. A peer review is also included in the talk page to let others know how the article should be improved. People tend to comment on their own parts, instead of discussing with each other.

On the quality scale, the article is rated as "Start-Class", which means that it needs to be verified and improved by contributors. The article is a part of WikiProject Philosophy. However, it is not well-developed to show the significant role of the topic in Philosophy.

In class, we discuss the topic face-to-face with classmates, and give explanation to our arguments directly. On Wikipedia, we must wait for others to reply whenever we post a comment on the topic. Besides, instead of giving our viewpoints about the topic and protecting them, we can only discuss the objective content and structure of the article. We cannot include our viewpoints on Wikipedia. We contribute to the general information and provide various viewpoints without arguing for the right or wrong on Wikipedia. When we make a change in the article, we must leave a comment to let people know what we have done. Others can see the history of changes, and discuss them with us to make objective contributions.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is not well-developed. Both content and structure should be improved. A Table of Content must be added. Major sections with subheadings should be included. More reliable sources should be cited to support the content and provide various viewpoints on the topic. Grammatical errors should be taken into consideration. Examples should be pointed out clearly for readers to follow. Some visual aids can be added to enhance understanding.

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:Truth condition