User:Delaney Demark/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: Schwa
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This is a sound we have discussed in class.

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 an appropriate and concise introductory sentence; its following description mentions topics to be discussed in the major sections. It does not include information that is not present in 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 article's content is relevant to the topic and up to date. There does not seem to be content that does not belong. However, there is content within the Description section that appears to be repeated in the Examples section. The article does, in fact, address topics related to historically underrepresented populations. For example, it references how the schwa is used in the Navajo language.

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
Overall, the tone does not seem to be biased towards any positions, so it is neutral.

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 links work, but given the amount of information provided in the article, the sources could be more thorough. The sources are not very recent, but the article pulls from sources over the past 35 years.

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 does not have basic errors and it is well-written. The article would be well organized if some information in the Description and Examples section were not repeated.

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
There is only one image for the page, but it is appropriate given the content of 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
Most of the conversations about the topic are about the various pronunciations different people have of words in relation to the schwa. The article is rated as a C-level project and lies within the WikiProject Linguistics. Wikipedia discusses the schwa in a hyper-critical way that examines different peoples' pronunciations of different phrases, and whether the schwa is used.

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
A strength of the article is that it provides many examples for schwa uses in different languages. Overall, it seems complete and well-developed. Eliminating the repetition between sections could improve the article's status.

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: