User:46.125.250.71/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Fluency (Fluency)
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I was assigned this article.
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but nothing more.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead is impoverished, constituting only one sentence with an unattributed definition of fluency.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Somewhat, although the definition of fluency is very broad and the content almost entirely focuses on language fluency.
- Is the content up-to-date? Barely any sources cited past 2010
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the section on creativity is out of place.
Content evaluation
[edit]The lead sets up a worringly broad definition of fluency that goes way beyond the scope of fluency in language. The content does not deliver on this lead. This article should be called: Fluency in Language. The little subsection on fluency in creative thinking is impoverished and completely unrelated to the rest of the article, it serves solely to justify the broad definition given at the top.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the article neutral? Mostly
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Cant say
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Cant say
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes, the statement that adults are actually faster learners is completely out of place.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]This is not my area of expertise, but the little content there is seems mostly balanced. Except for the jarring statement at the beginning of paragraph 2 in subsection 1.2, which is clearly trying to convince the reader of the (undoubtedly) contested notion that adults are faster language learners.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? paragraph 2 in subsection 1.2, sentence 1, not backed; subsection 1.2 paragraph 1: "ome scholars stating that adults can in fact become fluent in acquiring a second language." Which scholars?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Unsure
- Are the sources current? No, hardly any sources past 2010
- Check a few links. Do they work? Mostly
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Sources seem mostly fine, but outdated. Hardly any citations past 2010. One of them is a youtube video. Some statements are not covered by sources: paragraph 2 in subsection 1.2, sentence 1, not backed;
subsection 1.2 paragraph 1: "ome scholars stating that adults can in fact become fluent in acquiring a second language." Which scholars?
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat
Organization evaluation
[edit]Organization is lacking, as exemplified by the missing lead paragraph. According to the definition, fluency should cover much more than is covered in the article.
Images and Media
[edit]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
[edit]No media is used.
Checking the talk page
[edit]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
[edit]There is not much going on on the talk page. Which reflects the general state of the article. Several projects are attached and rate the article as a start class. There is a weird comment at the beginning of the talk page from some language academy.
Overall impressions
[edit]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
[edit]Article is in desperate need of work. The definition needs to be changed to reflect the fact the article is in effect only about language fluency, or the article needs to be expanded massively. The basic ideas for language fluency and acquisition are there. Poorly developed, start class is a fair rating.
Optional activity
[edit]- 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: