User:CatByun/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: Sign language
 * I chose this article to evaluate because I wanted to investigate more information about the acquisition of sign language and how it is similar to the acquisition of spoken languages. I also wanted to explore the linguistics of a non spoken language and compare the morphology of spoken language to the equivalent of morphology in sign language.

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 introductory sentence does clearly and concisely define what sign languages are and describes them linguistically, and the Lead includes some information included in article's major sections. The Lead mainly consists of various seemingly random and disconnected facts about sign languages, and some but not all of these facts are touched on in the article. The Lead is also relatively concise but does not give an effective preview of the content of the article.

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 content in some sections felt unnecessary and irrelevant to sign language and the linguistics of sign language. For example, in the history section the writer included information about people who created different systems of sign language over time but did not inform the reader about the actual changes of the language over time or the devolution of different alphabets of sign languages. The content is up-to date, and all of the content is at least somewhat related to sign language or linguistics to some extent. The article does mention a diverse array of sign languages and does not only focus on ASL.

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 is neutral and mainly states facts and established perspectives. It does not appear biased towards a particular theory or perspective because it discusses multiple opposing perspectives on the same subject such as in the iconicity section.

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
Not all the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source. In the "Use of sign languages in hearing communities" section, there is the footnote [citation needed], so the writer did not have a source for this information. Most of the sources are current but there are some out of date sources from the 1900s and some of the website links don't work. The sources are very diverse in terms of authors, but not all of the cited websites are reliable sources.

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 is fairly well organized overall but not always easy to read. The organization of syntax is not very well written throughout the article, and the writer uses lots of complicated synonyms making some of the sentences hard to understand. There don't seem to be any spelling errors, but there are a lot of run on sentences and missed punctuation.

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 included a few images that enhanced understanding of the section topics such as the map of classification of sign languages and the visual sign chart, but many of the images were unnecessary. There were multiple pictures of people teaching sign language that did not provide any additional information of understanding of the topic. However, almost all of the images were well-captioned and placed appropriately by topic. The images seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and the images are laid out in visually appealing way in that they do not distract from the article.

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 a level 4-vital article and is a part of WikiProjects Deaf, Languages, Linguistics/Applied Linguistics, and Disability. In the talk page, there have mainly been edits to the article to clean up confusing, vague, and badly worded sections as well as get rid of some bias and additional research to back up some claims in which no specific evidence was cited. Wikipedia discuses the topic of sign language from a global and cultural perspective, not just a linguistic perspective as we talk about it in class.

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
The article did provide lots of valuable and relevant information on the topic of sign language and provided a wholistic view on the subject, but the article did have some technical weaknesses. The biggest weaknesses of the article were the poor wording of sentences that overcomplicated simple concepts and the lack of specific evidence to back up certain claims.

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: