User:Casperterp/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article is the Final Project assigned to my cohort for the Legacies and Legends course with University of North Florida's Interpreting Pedagogy graduate program.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead reads as if it is a work in progress. Three of the last four sentences have the word also in them as if they were intended to be the last sentence of the section. While the section does contain some good information, it is choppy and lacks flow.

Content

The content of the article is relevant to the topic and seems to have information about the latest changes within RID. The section on the history of RID is the lengthiest portion of the article and detracts from the services RID has to offer now. In order to revise this article some consideration needs to be given to who the target audience/reader is. Perhaps more emphasis could be placed on the organization connection and service to the Deaf community. There has been activity and focus on intersectionality and to intentional effort to increase representation from BIPOC interpreters on behalf of BIPOC community members. Power, privilege, and oppression is mentioned but only briefly in the article. There is room for change and improvement in the article’s content.

Tone and Balance

At first glance, the article seems to be generally neutral. However the membership has been very divisive and had a very tumultuous history. None of this is reflected in the article, so I assume that there may be some people that would argue that not all viewpoints are reflected in the article. As I mentioned earlier, I believe there could be more information regarding the increased focus on PPO topics and BIPOC representation.

Sources and References

After checking several links within the article, I did not find any that did not connect with the information it was meant to provide. The bank of resources and literature available in 2022 has grown immensely, so the article would benefit from more connections to peer-reviewed articles. An intentional effort could be made toward seeking out more diverse authors which would also create better representation within the article.

Organization and Writing Quality

Portions of the article are written well and read cohesively. However, other portions of the article need correction and editing. For example, in the lead paragraph, the sentence discussing credentials states that interpreters maintain their “certificates” by “taking” continuing education units. The vocabulary choice here is improper and does not read well for an uninformed audience. Perhaps some attention could be paid to the organization of the article in general. Again, we need to give consideration to the reader and if possible, attempt to provide the most important information for the reader first.

Images and Media

The article does not contain any images or media. It would be wonderful if this content could be offered in ASL as well as English.

Talk Page Discussion

This article is of interest to several WikiProjects. All of the WikiProjects label this article as Start-class and either Low-importance or Mid-importance. There are a couple of entries and edits from 2008, 2013, and then again earlier in 2022. It seems Ariamaji is making an effort to update the article and has left messages stating that they are actively working on obtaining some additional information. I find it both interesting and frustrating that the article cannot quote the CPC tenets exactly. I respect the effort made by the person that has worked to put the tenets in their own words. That was not an easy task, and I can guess that they find many critics of just about every word choice they have made.

Overall Impressions

This article contains some solid and beneficial information but has room for improvement. The major area of focus should be on making connections to contemporary peer-reviewed articles, and updating information to include an increased focus on diversity and representation. General clean up in flow of information and basic editing would also help. The general audience would also benefit from a revised order of sections, but that may not be possible under Wikipedia rules.