User:VeronicaCard/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

• Name of article: (GAIA (journal))

Content

1. This article's content was able to stay consistently on topic throughout. Every section provided pertinant information relating to the GAIA journal. When reviewing the history of the article, I was able to see that the article had been updated to incorporate up-to date content several times in January, 2020. All content included within this article is important and I could not imagine any information the author is missing. One distracting aspect is the organization of the content. The author's introduction paragraph jumps around information in a non concise or clear way. For example, they describe the publisher, then talk about the languages the journal comes in, them describes the editor in chief. It would be a lot more clear if staff were placed within their own section of information

Tone and Balance

2. The entire article does a good job at remaining neutral and incorporating no bias or persuasion within its text.The content simply provides facts such as the staff involved, the date of publish, and sections within the journal. The staff involved in the publication where brushed over and simply written about within the introduction portion. They could potentially be incorporated within their own section.

Sources and References

3. The links to all of the sources do function properly and they do confirm the information being expressed within the text. Although, all of the sources are not current being mostly from 2015. Not to mention, many of the references are to other wikipedia articles and do not lead to a primary source. The articles they are referencing come from reliable literature sources but this second source information becomes harder to check for reliability. I was unable to find any evidence of plagiarism.

Sources and References (continued)

4. Many of the facts are not accompanied by a source attached. For example, "Since 2001 it is published by oekom verlag", Did not have any citation tags near it informing the reader of where the information was taken from. The sources that are given are neutral and unbiased while also being outdated and secondary.

Checking the talk page

5. There are no conversations at all happening in the talk page. Wikipedia rated this article Start-Class. This article is currently involved in three different wiki projects including articles for creation, academic journals, and environment. In class, we have focussed on how language can be interpreted by others and what is the perlocutionary effect of a speech act. For example, what does the suspect consenting think, the jurors interpreting witnesses, or the officers providing lawyers suspect. Wikipedia handles the topic of speech acts in a very illocutionary way. They focus on the author, insuring that their intent when writing is very clear and has zero room for interpretation.