User:IsabelRM 0722/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I chose to evaluate Linguistic racism.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am completing this Wikipedia training as a part of my Linguistics in the Digital Age class, so I thought Linguistic racism was appropriate. I also have always been interested in Linguistics because my mother has various college degrees in the field, so I just thought this article sounded interesting.

Evaluate the article
Addressing the first key aspect, "Lead Section", I think that this article meets all of the criteria laid out. First of all, the title sums up everything that will be talked about. The introduction sentence is concise and only addresses what will be elaborated on. There is no additional, unnecessary information.

The content that is included in the article is relevant to the topic, mostly using sources that address the meaning, effect, and various examples of linguistic racism. Some of the sources included are pretty outdated (2005, 1999), but more recent sources are utilized as well (2021, 2023). This topic definitely addresses an equity gap present in our society.

The article does not seem biased in any way or another. All of the statements that could possibly be interpreted as opinions are presented as an explanation of another source's opinions, and it is presented in an objective manner. It definitely addresses minority viewpoints as well.

In terms of sources, the links work, and a variety of sources are used, including scientific studies, articles written by news platforms, reviews, and so on. Marginalized communities are also included and make a significant contribution to this article, for example, Hispanic and American Indian cultures. I think most of the sources are very good, but there was one source that looked slightly odd. There could've possibly been a better alternative in this instance. A quick Google Search revealed that there were many other articles that addressed the same topic.

As far as conventions, I didn't notice any major (or any at all) grammatical errors. The article is separated nicely and distinctly, with a transition of major points occurring in every paragraph.

There are no images used in this article. I think the addition of some images could be added to improve audience engagement.

The Talk page does not have any conversations on it. It does state, however, that the article is of interest to many Wikiprojects. The article itself is a result of a Wiki Education Assignment.

Overall, I think this article is well-written, concise, and accurate. It is easy to follow as well, meaning the writing structure is well-chosen and the grammar is correct. There could be some minor improvements, such as the addition of pictures or possibly swapping out some sources for more recent ones, but other than that, I really enjoyed the read.