User:Jczhu/sandbox

Evaluating content

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes. Nothing distracting. Mentions language family and a few languages from that family, but avoids speaking too much about the non-Quechan languages
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The newest piece of information is the native speaker census from 2015, so it is not particularly out of date. The article indicates that there are young speakers (preschoolers) as of 2009 so the language should still be stable, but it is unclear. For one, how fluent would these young speakers be at this time and did they continue learning the language afterwards?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Nothing much. It looks very clean (and they're using IPA, which makes it more generally accessible)

Evaluating Tone

 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Mostly neutral. Main opinion that stood out to me was a quote from a filmmaker that seems to encourage language preservation. But it's not that direct. Could just be seen as a general statement how Quechan songs are not completely understandable unless you completely comprehend the language.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Continuing from the last answer, there is more focus on language preservation efforts, but I'm somewhat curious to how the language faded to having such a small number of speakers. Were there difficulties in establishing language preservation efforts or was everyone onboard/willing to fight for it?

Evaluating Sources

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * One of the external links does not work, but otherwise the sources match the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Didn't notice anything particularly egregious. Something I noticed is they put their citations at the very bottom of sections (e.g. bottom of phonology) so I didn't notice them at first.
 * Sources regarding language itself reliable. Grammar published by UChicago.
 * Less sure about the news (?) articles. They're from publications with "Yuma" in their names (which is the language family Quechan belongs to)

Checking the talk page

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * mostly link/reference cleaning
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * rated stub-class, part of a few language projects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Not really applicable; maybe describes things less in detail, but I expected that as we can't just copy a whole grammar into a wiki page.
 * Also no mention of universals, which is the topic of this class. Not sure what the convention is for language pages. May be too off-topic to compare to other languages in general.