 | This is a user sandbox of Mar ling2016. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Evaluating Articles: Linguistic Typology
1. What is the "grade," if any, that the article has. What is its indicated importance?
The overall ‘grade’ that I would give this article is a C+, meaning it still needs additional editing to be considered a great article.
2. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
Each claim presented is not referenced by a source, but rather a subtitle is placed in the beginning of sections with the words ‘Main article: example’. This may suggest that the only article used to illustrate the facts is covered by said article, but if additional sources for these sections are used, it is not stated specifically. Also, in some cases, there are unnamed sources, such as instances where we find “many typologists classify” and it also contains a warning banner at the top of the article regarding the reliability of the sources.
3. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
It appears the claims are for the most part neutral. If any argument could be made about biasness it would be the fact that only European languages are analyzed in this article.
4. Where does the information come from? Do these seem to be neutral sources? Choose three sources cited, and find them yourself.
The information seems to come from University presses, such as Oxford and University of Chicago.
5. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? If your answer is "yes," (a) indicate what viewpoint(s) you think might qualify as overrepresented, and (b) what viewpoint you think might be underrepresented.
The section that I believe received underrepresentation was the quantitative typology section because of the very brief introduction of ‘preferences’ and ‘correlations’.
6. Check four citations. Do the links work? Is their any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?
Though the references and bibliography are present, I was unable to access them directly because they did not have direct links. Thus, I was unable to verify the plagiarism or paraphrasing in this article, specifically from the bibliography. But, I was able to access the first reference, which is Song, J.J. (ed.) (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press., and was able to use this a source for the suggestions to improve the article.
7. Select and list up to three major topics or issues raised about the article from the Talk page related to the article. Do you agree with what the contributors say, or not? Why?
Whining section: I partially agree with this section because it may be repetitive. However, it may be useful, especially for those unfamiliar with linguistics. It may help them understand the different possible structure variations.
Word order section: I agree with the second portion of the word agent section that both (agent/patient and subject/object) may be necessary to show that distinct terminologies may better illustrate the structural characteristics that are compared in linguistic typology.
SVO section: I agree with the contributor in this section because terminology on Wikipedia should not rely solely on technical jargon, as Wikipedia is usually a first reference point for people who do not know what that topic is about. Thus, introducing any technical jargon is important and providing example will be essential is providing beginners with a better understanding the topic being discussed.
Suggestions for the Page:
A brief mention of how linguistic typology is useful in historical linguistics may be helpful. For example, adding:
“The comparison of structures and functions in languages may also be helpful in the field of historical linguistics. Historical linguistics can test theories about which languages arose from older proto-languages through a comparison of the characteristics observed in linguistic typology.”
Source: Song, J.J. (ed.) (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-928125-1.