User:David.white834/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: (link) History of the Russian language
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article because I am majoring in Russian at my university. It is a complex and fascinating language and I know a little about the subject. It is always best to study something you have a genuine interest in.

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 has a fantastic introductory sentence. It is short and simple, clearly stating the topic. There is a brief description and hyperlinked list of the article's major sections. There is no information in the Lead that is not elaborated upon further throughout the article. The entire Lead paragraph is only three sentence long, short and concise.

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
This article is perfectly relevant to its topic. The content clearly describes the history of the Russian language with great detail. It is up-to-date, with an entire section devoted to how the language is still changing in the 21st century. Equity gaps are not a topic of this article, as it is unrelated to historically underrepresented populations.

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
This article is very neutral. The subject matter is not the most contestable of topics and as a result all of the information is neutral and represented well. There is no visible bias or efforts to persuade. More than anything this article is historical, providing clear examples and details.

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
Each fact is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. Multiple books and scholarly articles are cited. Each of these sources is unbiased and academic. Many of the articles are peer-reviewed. Sourcing is thorough but could use some work. There are thousands of secondary sources with information about the Russian language by only 13 are cited in this article. More sourcing always contributes to the strength of an article. Most of the sources are current and from the 21st century. Those sources that are not current are acceptable because this is an article regarding history. Some historical secondary sources must be used. The group of authors is not the most diverse, consisting mostly of American, European, and Russian white male scholars. Some diversity would be fantastic, if achievable. Links work well.

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 organization is quite good. It follows the chronological development of Russian, then dives into extensive examples and details of language structure. It is concise and although the topic can be challenging, it is easy to read. There are no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors.

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 History of Russian language as a topic does not lend itself to images very well. There are a handful of images, which are all necessary and helpful. Each has short but descriptive captions and are easily understandable. The pictures are of very old, historical items and as a result copyright is not an issue. The layout of the images is not outstandingly appealing, but efficient. They are placed to the right of the text that they are related to.

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
The talk page for this article is extremely extensive. There are multiple ongoing debates about proper Russian grammar and translation between scholars and Russian natives. It is extremely interesting to see how the article has evolved from these conversations. It is part of WikiProject Russia, WP Languages, WP Soviet Union, and WP History. It is rated C-class in WP Russia and Soviet Union and Start-class in WP Languages. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic does not differ much from the way we have talked about it in class. Although Linguistics 201 has not covered Russian extensively, it has been discussed a few times. Each of the things I learned from those lessons is also found in this 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
This is an extraordinarily well written article. It has a variety of information, sources, and examples. The subject is deeply explored and analyzed at great length. Multiple pieces of Russian writing are examined to prove points. The only improvement I can see would be a further expansion of sources. Articles can always grow from more opinions and information. I would assess this article as complete and well-developed.

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: