User:Danielmogil/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Deaf culture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This article represents a core aspect of my course, The World of Sign Languages. Internationally, societal acceptance of deaf communities varies (variables include culture, religion, etc).

Section headers properly represent key topics.

Plenty of references (ranging in age).

Concise but important opening statement.

Education section info not balanced. Focuses on the United States, lumps the rest of the world under "Other Countries."

Good diversity of topics.

Overall, I had a good initial impression of Deaf Culture.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section-

Introductory section properly introduces the topic, but fails to introduce major section headers. The lead section is a concise definition of "Deaf Culture," including a clarification between the capital and the lowercase form of "deaf" (good information for the reader as such variations may appear later in the article).

Content-

Content is relevant and up to date. The education section should include more information regarding international deaf education. Sign languages section should be extended. Deaf services section is outdated and should be updated. The topic does address underrepresented communities.

Tone and Balance-

The article is neutral, represents sub underrepresented groups (ex. deaf LGBTQ), and strictly informative.

Sources and References-

Sources are great: ranging in age, plentiful, scholarly, thorough, properly cited (accessible), varying authors, valid hyperlinks.

Organization and writing quality-

The articles is well written, both structurally and grammatically. Institutions could reside under the education section.

Images and media-

Images meet all of the criteria. I like that some sections have signed translations (should be expanded to all sections).

Talk page-

Talk pages is not very active, likely because the article is far along (well-developed). Topics surround proposed additions and edits. The article is part of several WikiProjects (Deaf, Disability). The article is among Wikipedia's controversial topics.

Overall-

Overall, the article is well-written, content rich, neutral, and well organized. Improvements include extending the "other countries" subsection, extending the "sign language" section, and updating the "deaf services" section to better reflect currently available services. Organization wise, I would move all institution subheadings to the "education" header. This article is well-developed.