User:Joy4heart/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Deaf education
 * I choose this article to evaluate because I am interested in learning more about the subject manner. I have a friend who is a deaf studies major at Cal State Northridge and I always have found what she has to say about the deaf community to be very interesting. I would like to become more knowledge in the subject myself so that I can more accurately discuss topics with her.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

I think the opening sentence does a good job of concisely explaining what the article is about, however I do think something is missing about the levels of variety in which hearing loss can occur. I think the disclosure at the very top of the article is very helpful to further direct a reader to exactly what they are looking for what without having to read the entire article only to find the topic in which they are seeking isn’t covered in this article. The lead contains information about almost all of the articles major sections. It is missing information about the article contains in history of deaf education in different countries. I do think the lead is very concise and doesn’t overwhelm the reader, especially if they were just looking for a brief explanation on what deaf education is. From what I can tell, everything in the lead is further explained in the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

I found all of the articles content to be relevant to the topic. I thought it all seemed important and well written. The history section in particular seems like it could use some additions. It doesn’t seem like it’s been updated in awhile. There needs to be more information added to the teacher training section. It also doesn’t really explain what deaf education associations are or what they do. They section of issues also needs expansion. There is little there information there and I think there are probably more issue that have arisen over the years.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

From what I could tell this article appeared to have a neutral viewpoint. Nothing seemed heavily based toward a particular position to me. It all seemed to looked at from a factual viewpoint. I think the article does a good job of stating the types of education and tools without saying one is better or more beneficial than the other.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

From what I could tell it appears that these facts are backed up from a secondary source. It appears that all of the sources seem to be reliable as well. Some sources are older but there are also quite a few recent ones too. All of the links I clicked on worked and took me to what seemed to be reputable websites. There are also articles from many different areas of study including some from other countries.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article does seem to well-written. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. However, I do think there is some advanced language that is overly complicated and confusing. Particularly in the first section that talks about identifying deaf students and educational philosophies. One thing in particular that I noticed was the use of D/HH as an abbreviation for deaf and hard of hearing. This abbreviation was never explained and at first glance of reading I wasn’t sure what it stood for.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are only three images provided two of which are pictures of schools. I don’t think these images add all that much to the topic. I think some images of people signing or deaf teachers in action would add much more to the article and help readers to visual the ideas being talked about. The images that are present already are well-captioned and tell the reader exactly what they are seeing. They do also appear to be laid out in a relevant and appealing fashion.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There was a good amount of chat about schools that now offer programs and some additions of important historical facts and information. This article is apart of many wiki projects including some that aren’t disability specific. This page is discussed from a very factual stand point. In our in class discussions we have talked about it from a more cultural view.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

I would say overall this article is close to being complete. I believe at a time it may have been completely developed and up to date but that over time it hasn’t been maintained. It is well edited with no grammatical errors I could find. It does a good job of telling the reader everything it they need to know. It is a little wordy and repetitive at times so I do think it could use some editing and be made more conscience.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: