User:IqraSajjad1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Khowar 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 chose this article because it interested me as someone from Pakistan. I think the article matters because documenting any language in danger is an important step in trying to preserve it. Compared to the previous language related articles I was looking at, this one offered more information but it still seemed less than the usual Wikipedia articles I've looked at.

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.)

Lead section

 * The lead's introductory sentence consists of important details such as the type of language Khowar is and where it is spoken. But instead of providing a brief description of the article's main points it solely focuses on where the speakers of the language are located. Furthermore, this information is never further discussed anywhere in the article. Overall, the lead is concise though.

Content

 * Even though all the content in the article is relevant to the topic, it may not be up-to-date since many of the cited links are from the 1900s. Also, since I’m not that knowledgeable on the topic, I can’t say for certain that there is no additional information that could be added. The article deals with an endangered language hence it is a topic related to an underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is presented in a neutral point of view thus there are no claims that lean towards a particular side. Also, since the topic at hand isn’t a controversial topic, the information presented isn’t opinionated except for the history section which contains a quote from Morgenstierne. There are no viewpoints involved including minority or fringe viewpoints. Hence, the article doesn’t try to persuade the reader into taking one side or the other.

Sources and References

 * Most of the information in the article is from a reliable source except for some of the information in the lead section. That information is not cited so there is no way of knowing where it came from. The sources reflect the available information on this topic but a lot of them are from the 1900s. Also, most of the sources were from different linguists thus there wasn’t any information taken directly from the people that speak the language. I found some other sources that could be used for this topic: Contact-induced change in Khowar, Development of Khowar as a Literacy Language, Results of interaction between linguists and language community: Case study in Chitral, Northern Pakistan, and Some Khowar Songs. Additionally, the links on this page work.

Organization and writing quality

 * Each section consists of information that is relevant and easy to follow. The information is to the point and no off topic tangents occur. But there are some grammatical errors such as missing commas. Besides that, the article is well organized.

Images and Media

 * The article includes two images that help understand the topic better. These images are captioned properly and adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. But they aren’t placed in a visually appealing way since they are right next to each other.

Talk page discussion

 * Most of the talk page consisted of ways to clean the article up and make it more relevant to the topic at hand. The article is rated start class and belongs to two WikiProjects: WikiProject languages and WikiProject Pakistan. While the Wikipedia page focuses more about the language itself, the topic in class is more focused on why it’s in danger.  Thus, they cover the topic in different perspectives.

Overall impressions

 * It's a start but it's lacking a lot of information. Fortunately, it’s organized and easy to follow along. The article can be improved by adding more information and making sure everything is sourced. I would assess this article as underdeveloped.