User talk:Dreadami/sandbox

Wikipedia Discussion/ Evaluation Assignment 2

Check the "Talk" page of the article you've selected. What is the level of importance (or quality) assigned to the topic? What is the class-level of the article, and what reason(s) did you find for that “grade?” -	According to the importance scale on the Wikipedia talk page, the article for Grammatical Gender is rated as “top- importance”. The article is also rated as a C- class level on the quality scale. Although, the subject is of high importance in the field of linguistics, the quality is not all that great. Typically, articles that are deemed c- class level tend to need further polishing for the improvement of the article. It may also have irrelevant information and could be missing important information.

Is there a focus for the comments, or are there several? What are the issues that the comments address? -	Overall, there are several comments, but they mostly focus on the same issue. One of the comments on the talk page very briefly focused on French nouns with the suffix –ton,-sion, and –aison and whether they are all feminine French noun endings. However, the majority of the comments focused on the same issue of gender vs. noun class. The comments address how gender and noun class are often used interchangeably, and also whether gender and noun class should be placed in separate articles. They also address the need for concrete definitions.

Select two of the issues, and summarize the discussions. How does the discussion relate to what you have learned, or feel you know about the issue? Is there resolution? How does the language on the actual page relate to the talk about it? -	Like I mentioned before, the only issue I found that stood out on the talk page of the article focused primarily on gender vs. noun class. There was a disagreement about the definition for both gender and noun class. Some people stated that there was a clear distinction found in the definition between both, but some said otherwise. Those that opposed to that statement, claimed that there was no clear distinction between gender and noun class because the definition was not consistent with the information therefore deeming it not accurate. The other issue was that noun class and gender should not be placed together in the same article and like before some also disagreed. Those who thought they should be placed in separate articles claimed that gender and noun class were used inconsistently and only confused them. They wondered whether gender and noun class could be used interchangeably, and if they were mutually exclusive. Personally, I do not have enough knowledge about the issue at hand, so I can’t really say much about it. I do understand that it did cause lots of confusion among the readers. Not knowing if they should treat gender and noun class as the same thing or not was certainly questionable. Based on the comments, it is apparent that there is definitely lots of uncertainly, confusion and disagreement. A possible solution would be to provide the reader with more detailed explanations and definitions of the topic so that the confusion is lessened or completely cleared. Perhaps, more examples should be implemented as well so that it supports the information already provided. Lastly, information that is irrelevant should be removed.

How do the article and discussion relate to our treatment of the topic—in our reading and in our discussion? Did we address it at all? If so, did we do so in ways consistent with the understanding in the article or the talk page? You may find agreement with some of the discussants and disagreement with others. -	I don’t believe we necessarily have discussed grammatical gender (explicitly) very much if at all thus far. However, I can agree that the information provided is a little bit too scattered and not sufficiently thorough. I guess you can say that It is not a very morphology centered topic or article.

What is your sense of the discussion? In other words, what do you conclude is most convincing or explanatory? Why? (i.e., what reasoning led you to draw the conclusion you have drawn?) -	I can concluded that it is evident why there was so much confusion. Looking at the discussion it is profoundly apparent that the readers are not satisfied with the article. There is a lot that can be improved on. This article lacks details and important information. There structure of the article can also use some editing. I think by assessing the article and discussion it is clear why the article is rated as c- class level.