User:Arc011101/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Endangered Languages Project
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

The course focus is endangered languages, and this article describes a project centered around the gathering of information about endangered languages.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and explanatory of the article's focus. It serves more as an introduction to the article rather than providing a real overview of the article's major sections. It is a bit vague when describing the aim of the project the article talks about. Rather than saying "strengthens endangered languages" a more specific explanation could be more helpful. Strengthens them in what way? Rather than saying that the foundation of the article is a website (which is linked), writing the name of the website would be less vague.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article's content is all relevant and up-to-date, as it mentions information that is current as of 2020. The article is dealing with endangered languages which in the majority of cases are languages spoken by underrepresented, minority populations. The information on background and personnel seems a bit lacking and leaves questions on the structure of the organization. For example, the Advisory Committee is mentioned however there is no followup information on what role the Advisory Committee takes in the organization. Explanation of the site and the project's aim is helpful and clear.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article has a generally neutral tone, though it does seem to stress the importance of the website through the mentioning of the urgency of the conservation of endangered languages. For the most part the article is fairy objective and informative (in as much as any article can be objective). As it is an article about the ELP it makes sense that the viewpoints are centered around those that made the project, however because the project is based on endangered languages, the inclusion of viewpoints of the speakers of endangered languages rather than just the collectors of information around them are limited.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the facts in the article are backed up with reliable articles and sources. The sources are all from the past decade and there are some from very recent years so they are fairly current and up-to-date. However, many of the sources are the actual website itself, which is understandable as the website would be the best source to get information about the project from, but if there was a bit of a wider variety with more diverse authors it might be better for the article. The links do work and are informative.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article has easily identifiable sections that are self-explanatory and well-organized so they provide the relevant information in an accessible way. The article is well-written without many errors, however, sometimes there are unnecessary sentences that don't add much to the reader's understanding and don't seem to have a point. For example, the article states: "that catalogue's goal is to continuously improve" however they do not explain the direction that improvement should take, or how it would improve.

Images and Media

 * 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
The article includes images that enhance the understanding of the topic, are sourced, and provide an interesting addition to the written information. The images are laid out well and capture the reader's attention. However, while there are images in the article, there is no image for the actual title. Even just including an image of the website would be better, that way the reader gets a sense of what the site that the article describes is like, and it would make things clearer.

Checking the talk page

 * 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
This article is rated as Start-Class and is a part of WikiProject Languages and WikiProject Endangered Languages. There is no discussion in the Talk page about the topic and how it has been represented, there are only websites and sources listed that contain information that could be useful to the article.

Overall impressions

 * 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
I think this article was good overall. It was easily understandable and accessible, properly sourced, and well-organized. There were some seemingly unnecessary or lacking pieces of information that could be improved upon or removed to make the article more cohesive. The article is a bit underdeveloped - it consists mostly of a brief overview and history of the website, and would be more helpful to go into more detail about what the website does and how it is done. Though a bit lacking, the article is generally well done.

Optional activity

 * 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: