User:Tqxn08/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: Rod Ellis
 * I have decided to evaluate this article because the name Rod Ellis sounds familiar and am curious about what his contribution to the world of linguistics is.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It seems like the article's topic revolves more about his work, while the lead revolved more around his places of work.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really, the lead does not transition well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it lists all of his workplaces, which is not in the actual bulk of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overly detailed about his workplace and could use more information about his work in general.

Lead evaluation: 4/10
Needs to talk more about what he was researching and less about his career. The information placed in the lead should be relocated to the Career section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, but the content is too simple for time to be a problem.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content belongs, but there is not much information

Content evaluation: 7/10
Content is sparse, but all correct. Information accurately tells me about Rod Ellis, but it is done in a strange way. I know what he studied, but I would love to know more about what he studied in those topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Pretty much. I can see no way it can be biased towards or against him based on the writings.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, bias is low.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there is not a position to take really

Tone and balance evaluation: 8/10
Information is balanced well, but some words may be too strong without sources to back up. Words like "by far" should be supported by evidence.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, but there are not a lot of facts in general
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes and No. Everything that was placed into the Rod Ellis Wikipedia article seems to be information obtained from the University of Auckland's website. From that we know that the information about him is primary source and recorded in the website. Whoever then made the Wikipedia article would then be a secondary source, unless Rod Ellis himself made it. That being said, it is also a "no" for me because I believe that there is more information that can be obtained from his scholarly articles. Especially to put in the research portion.
 * Are the sources current? Not too current, but within the 2010s at least.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation: 4/10
There are two sources, one from his professor profile from his University and one from one scholarly article. There definitely could be more.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise and easy to read, but I would say that it is written in an okay manner. It is nothing special.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I can see one spelling difference, but it is like a US English vs UK/AU/NZ English difference.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think that the idea to split it into career and research makes sense considering the information on his is just about these two things.

Organization evaluation: 7/10
It could be a bit better, but is half way there at the moment.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk page complains about how poorly written it is. The other comment is about how the writer put in a new link.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is an S at the moment.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? They discuss Rod Ellis through his life, work, and books. They do not talk much about his research results.

Talk page evaluation: 2/10
Talk page barely even exist.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The information is there.
 * What are the article's strengths? The information is not wrong. It's writing is neutral. It does not lead readers a certain direction.
 * How can the article be improved? There could probably be more information about the research he made. Learning more about how he comes to the conclusion could always help people understand the discussions made. It could also use more sources to support the information, even though some of it is common knowledge, and a picture of him at least..
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It's severely underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation: 3/10
I've seen Wikipedia pages with much less information and graphics to be honest. This one seems like it is being built up, but the author never finished it.

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:Rod Ellis