User:JuliaLeary/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: Home sign
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I think that this is interesting linguistic phenomenon that is unique. It is also an important and relevant area of study considering many deaf children are born to hearing parents, which can (and often does) create a communication barrier within the home. I noticed that there has been no discussion on the talk page for improving this article, and the article itself is lacking in inline citations, visuals, and includes links to several non-existing Wikipedia pages.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article topic and, in its entirety, mentions several key related topics that could be made into subsections. There is more salient information presented in the Lead than the Content area, and this needs to be developed in subsections and cited with up-to-date evidence. The Lead mentions comparison between home signs and pidgins; however the article compares home sign and sign languages. It also mentions "private language" and the extent to which family members attempt to communicate in signing with the deaf child who, as claimed in the Lead, most of the sign; however the article does not provide statistics and examples in the Content or the Lead. Overall, the Lead needs to be made concise and the information that has been presented in it should be broken into subsections, further explained, and backed by evidence and examples.

Content

 * Guiding question


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant, but the inline citations are sparse, and the existing evidence provided should be updated. The title "Sign languages" is vague considering that home sign is not a language (as mentioned above) and this could be clarified to mean "Comparison to Sign Languages". There are content sections that should be created and added based on the detail of information provided in the Lead. These ideas can expanded upon and analyzed with evidence (ie. the relationship between home signs of different users, relationship to pidgin languages, statistics about use, etc.)

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. It contains phrases like "sign language community", without mention of the "Deaf community". There are no direct links to the Deaf community or Deaf culture, and the article does not provide that groups perspective on home sign. The article also makes strong claims without supportive evidence, like who uses sign most in the family and the extent to which family members attempt sign communication with a deaf child.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are reliable sources in the data, however some are dated. For example, there is little evidence and detail about the linguistic aspects of home sign and the only presented evidence about the contents of home signs is related to Nancy Frishberg (no Wikipedia link) from 1987. There should be more evidence and explanation about what home sign looks like and how it is formulated between the deaf child and family. Many of the sources are about sign languages that are related to home sign, but there is less detail about home sign on its own. One of the links is to an article that is not in English.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
It is clear and easy to read but it is more of a summary. It would be difficult to understand more of the fine aspects of home sign from this article due to the lack of content and sources, as well as the amount of links to non-existing or scarcely developed Wikipedia pages. There are a few grammatical errors. the article lacks organization putting most of the important content into the Lead section and vague/unclear content headings.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media on this page. Images and examples (videos or pictures) should be added to both the Lead and the Content sections for readers to develop a better understanding of "home sign". Home signs are a visual communication modality, so images are important to understanding the topic.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There has been no discussion on the Talk page. The article is part of WikiProject Deaf and has been rated as Start-Class on the project quality scale. We have not covered this topic in depth in class. We have discussed what makes a language a language, who makes the rules, and what are the rules. This article dips into how home sign differs linguistically/differs in rules from sign language, but there could be more information about who creates home sign or rules that may/or may not exist in home sign.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article could be better organized with more content sections that are well developed and evidence supported. There is definitely a need for more inline citations, but overall this article touches upon areas related to home sign and can be useful in determining which sections need to be created. I would say that this article is underdeveloped and could use updating in sources and information.

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: