User:Hazel Burris/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article : Linguistics in the United States

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No, this article begins with the description of a founding linguist rather than a defining statement of linguistics in the US.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, this article is very small and just has one main section.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It seems as if this article skipped the lead. It starts the article with content information right away.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. However, when I first searched this topic, I expected more information about content, it does break down the history of US linguistics.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, there has been new information added as of 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? While I do not know the various races represented in the people of this article, they could expand this article to have a section dedicated to the influences of US linguistics from different races.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not really.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? As stated above, no. Information representing different races and cultures should be added.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not explicitly. There are some facts about people that just have a link to another Wiki page rather than a reference to an article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. For what the goal of this article is, they get the job done.
 * Are the sources current? One is from 2020, so for that one, yes. The others are a bit dated, but the info is historical, so not much has changed to make the facts dated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The two dated articles are both written by white authors. However, the newer reference is written by Jamil Smith who is a POC.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) There is most definitely better sources. These resources come from NY Times articles and Britannica.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No. It is too small to read.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There was a move that passed to change the title.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is apart of the WikiProject United States and WikiProject Linguistics.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It does not include any technical information about linguistics as a study. It focuses only on history.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Mediocre
 * What are the article's strengths? Clearly lays out a brief history for readers who need quick historical facts.
 * How can the article be improved? It could incorporate so much more information about linguistics in the US. So much could fall under that title, yet it only covers the history.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.