User:Duncan1999/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: Dyirbal language
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Because this article is about the language I have chosen for this class, a language I find interesting and have done a great deal of research into.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Does this correctly identify important information which can give people a good overview of the topic, while also intriguing them to read the rest of the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not, it is a brief overview that leaves much to be desired.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes it does. Information about Dixon, and the language family among other things.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is extremely concise. In some ways perhaps too concise, lacking some important details

Lead evaluation
Requires more detail, and more information.

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * Is this informative? Is it teaching necessary aspects of the language.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the information is relevant to knowledge of the language.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Judging by the last edit date and the time most research on this language was done, yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It is missing information about the people and history of the language, as well as its role in the world and endangerment.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does. It addresses an aboriginal language, which is a subject that does not get very much coverage traditionally.

Content evaluation
'''Information presented is good but lacking. More is needed.'''

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * Is the information being given in a good informative way which balances all sides?


 * Is the article neutral? Yes. It seems to shy away from controversial topics, and in the section on taboos' refers to them in an objective way without passing value judgements.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? In its omission of the history it does seem to underrepresent the views of the people on their history and the status if their language.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Tone and balance evaluation
'''Tone is very neutral. Presentation of certain aspects of history may be needed, but generally the tone should be kept the same.'''

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Are there sources? Are they diverse? Are they reliable?


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? A lot of facts appear to be uncited or requiring more information on their origin.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? In a sense they do, however narrow they may be. That is more an indication of how little research has been done on this topic. More sources from more authors are needed beyond the one book by Dixon.
 * Are the sources current? No, they are mostly from the 70s, but that is when most of this research was done.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No. They are mostly the work of R. M. W. Dixon
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they do.

Sources and references evaluation
Requires more sources, which are more diverse.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * Does the organization make sense? Does the article flow?


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is not terribly written, but it does leave more to be desired.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I have noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is decently organized, but some of the topics do not seem to have much to do with one another, and could possibly be subtopics of another, larger topic.

Organization evaluation
'''Needs to be better. Some topics should be subtopics or expanded and the flow must be improved.'''

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * Are the images illustrative? Do they catch the eye? Do they enhance the article?


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No. Only one image of where on a map the language is spoken.
 * Are images well-captioned? No. They are not captioned at all.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No. The one image is in an odd place.

Images and media evaluation
'''More images are needed than a simple map. Images which can say more about the language. Such as its people, its writings, and its researchers.'''

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * Is the conversation happening there touching on important issues? Is it civil? Is it productive?


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Excellent conversations on the technical aspects and grammar of the language, including theoretical aspects and how it relates to linguistics as a whole.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rates start-class and mid-importance. It is a part of wiki-projects Australia.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It talks about the language in ways that are more advanced than that of an undergraduate course.

Talk page evaluation
'''Very informative. Very intelligent conversation.'''

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * How is the article as a whole?


 * What is the article's overall status? A good start, but definitely needs improving.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is informative while being concise.
 * How can the article be improved? With more information and a more diverse set of sources as well as an update on the state of the language and its views.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would evaluate it as incomplete. It is underdeveloped and needs more work done to it.

Overall evaluation
Overall the article is a good start to the topic, but requires more information.

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: