User:Jgags/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Arabic verbs

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it after browsing through C-List articles related to Linguistics because of its relation to the course, and it gives me the opportunity to expose myself to an orthography that doesn't use the Latin alphabet. When initially browsing the article, it seems somewhat organized (at least that which I can understand), but a quick glance at the talk page makes it clear that this article has been through some history.

Lead Section
The first paragraph of the lead section does a good job of concisely introducing the topic. The rest of the lead section could be classified as unnecessarily detailed. Some information in the lead section could be distributed to other existing or new sections, like when it starts to mention weakness. As such, while the reader is introduced to the topic, it makes the article seem somewhat disorganized from the start.

Content
While it's hard to tell since the topic is a completely foreign language, there seems to be a good enough amount of content to entice someone who's interested in studying Arabic verbs, and promotes a non-English orthography and culture. It should be noted though that the article doesn't feature any history of the development of Arabic verbs. If that information is relevant to this specific article, then a major section is missing. Otherwise, the article features many notes on the structure of present Arabic verbs and links to other relevant articles.

Tone and Balance
The article is neutral and presents no bias.

Sources and References
As stated before, the article has many working links to other related Wikipedia articles. However, within this article itself, there is a lack of external sources. The References section has 3 points, with 2 of those being used as footnotes and only one citing an external source, which was authored by one person in 2005. And within the article, there is only a link to the external site Wiktionary.

Organization and writing quality
Information about the pronunciation, characters, speaking voices, etc. are all organized into tables throughout the article. The tables seem to do a good job and keeping things concise, and text outside the tables are used effectively to introduce a small topic, note on the content within the table, or present examples.

Images and Media
There are no such images or alternative media featured in the article.

Talk page discussion
This article is listed as part of a few Wikiprojects, but it doesn't seem that it gets too much attention, as evidenced by recent discussions going unanswered. Though, all the talk page discussions are related to the article and potentially fruitful in improving it.

Overall impressions
Overall, this article has a good foundation with its current presentation, and what's present is well-developed, but has a ways to go in terms of expanding the content and adding a diverse set of references.