User:Frenchsilkpie/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
American Sign Language

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.)

I choose this article because I believe that American Sign Language (ASL) is fascinating, and I have always wanted to delve deeper into what it entails beyond just communication. ASL matters because it is not often taught or offered in schools, but teaching ASL can help to develop new skills and help people to communicate effectively with individuals who use ASL for comprehension. My first impression of the article is that it appears to be thorough and has a substantial amount of information within it.

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.)

The chosen article has a clear introductory sentence because it directly explains what American Sign Language (ASL) is and where it is used. The article has clear and direct descriptions of its major section, whereas there is no unnecessary information not related to ASL in the introduction paragraph. The lead is not hard to follow, and is relatively easy to get the main ideas just from the introduction section. In relation to content, everything seems to be relevant to the topic of ASL, and there were some ideas that I was not fully aware of that are important to ASL. There appears to be little out-of-date content, especially considering that edits are still occurring recently. The article does a good job of representing historically marginalized groups but does not seem to be underrepresented. Rather, it provides explanations of how certain factors were marginal. However, the article could add more phonology information, or at least more examples in case someone reading the article wants to learn about it solely from this specific article. Furthermore, there are no biased tones or one or more of another viewpoint as the article informs about American Sign Language and what it consists of. When looking at the sources, the links appear to lead to a page that describes what the article is discussing and is supportive of the topic at hand. Each idea in the article has information that comes from various reliable books and peer-reviewed articles, along with other Wikipedia articles where the information is discussed more in-depth. Additionally, this article has clear sections for each point with a link to an article that has more extensive knowledge on the topic, as mentioned before. No grammatical or spelling errors were caught, and the read was clear to understand. Each image is captioned and placed appropriately according to the topic being discussed. They help to provide a visual to the topic, especially because ASL can be tricky to explain through text. Each image also has a citation to show where it is from. Moreover, the talk page of the article does not have many conversations, and there is a rating of a "good article." The only conversations are citations missing and opinionated suggestions. However, this article is from the Wiki Education project, has been peer-reviewed, and is listed as a good article nominee. Finally, overall the article appears to be complete and detailed. It has plenty of citations from reliable resources, and it is organized in a way that is easy to read and understand, along with finding sections. One thing it could improve has more examples for certain sections in addition to the in-depth links provided on other Wikipedia articles on the topic. The article was well-developed because it is thorough and gives an in-depth overview of what American Sign Language is. Anyone who wants quick information about ASL can find what they need with ease and in a way that can be understood.