User:Cament1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

SMS language

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

This article covers the majority of the topic I researched, which was that of text-messaging and textisms. This article also goes into some depth about how SMS Language can have negative affects in the classroom as students may use them in their formal or academic writing. I did notice, though, that it is lacking in research in that area, which is where I would contribute.

Evaluate the article

The first sentence does a good job introducing the topic that will be covered within the article. It clearly defines SMS Language, as well as introducing other vocabulary and jargon that may be used throughout. It also gives a helpful but concise history on how SMS Language originated and why it is that we adapted to use techspeak and textisms. The content of the article is highly relevant to the topic and is also up-to-date. Aside from the paragraphs that go into detail about the usage of SMS Language and how it originated and continues to develop today, there are also multiple charts and visuals that give examples of famously used textisms. By giving these examples, the article is able to more easily explain the topic and help the reader understand. There does not seem to be a section that deals with one of Wikipedia's Equity Gaps, although there is a brief section that discusses the differences between how SMS Language effects/has been used by males versus females. The article reads in a very neutral, balanced tone without any bias seeping through. There is a warning on the page right above a section stating that SMS Language hasn't been accepted into formally spoken dialects, yet, which may come across as disapproving or whiny, although it is a fact. Nearly every sentence is cited and backed up by a source. There are a wide variety of 61 sources used throughout the article, some of which are books but many of which are peer-reviewed articles or journals. The sources are all relatively current, as they span the past twenty years where texting and SMS Language has been of concern. Most of them are from the past five to ten years, though. The article is very well-organized, too, and is easy to read as the sections are clearly labeled and structured. From what I read, I couldn't catch any obvious or blatant grammatical mistakes or errors, either. The topic of SMS Language doesn't require many visuals or image to help the reader understand the topic, although the article does incorporate a few tables that provide a textism and its translation. Those tables are extremely helpful and easy to follow; they also appear to be created through Wikipedia -- it's not a copy and paste, Google images scenario. In the Talk Page, there are a few discussions revolving around the debate of when SMS Language and the texting abbreviations originated, as some argue for the early 2000s and others argue for the 70s and 80s where the hearing-impaired communicated through early cell-phone-like devices. Some on the Talk Page also believe the article is too long due to the tables that go in depth about examples of SMS Language; a few use a relatively hostile tone, as well. The article is relevant to three WikiProjects: WikiProject Internet, WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Telecommunications. This article has a score of 58, as there are still necessary changes and developments that need to be made, although overall I thought it was very well compiled and written. I think the article needs more information in regards to how SMS Language can affect different aspects of communication, such as writing and school-work, which is an underdeveloped section in the article.