User:Juliekallini/sandbox

Article Evaluation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_technology

Everything in the article was on topic, and, for the most part, other editors changed any unnecessary displays of opinion in the article (as seen on the talk page). But, the article still appears incomplete in my eyes. Even with my little knowledge of philosophy, I noticed that there was a notable philosopher on this topic that was absent from the Wikipedia page. I noted this on the talk page for the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huave_language

Everything in the article about the Huave language seems relevant to the topic.

The introduction is a good summary of the relevant topics related to the language, like where it’s spoken and who speaks it, as well as the number of speakers. I do think that the introduction could benefit from more citations, since the first paragraph is quite long but entirely lacks any citations.

One way I do think the article can be improved is by adding a morphology section. The wiki page has a sizable phonology section, but has little information dedicated to morphology. The article mentions in the “basic grammar” section that the language lacks intricate morphology, but I think a section for it should be on the page regardless. I also think the name of the “basic grammar” section should be replaced by “Syntax."

The tone of the article is neutral. There seems to be no biased claims. It is basically a report of information about the language.

I’m not sure about some of the sources referenced. One of the references is the thesis of a PhD student at UC Berkeley. I’m not sure if PhD students’ work is considered reliable. A few blogs are cited, including “Texting Endangered Languages.” At first glance, the blog did not seem to be an extremely reliable source. I think that this article would benefit from more citations from linguists and peer-reviewed articles.

I see that this article is a part of many wiki projects on the talk page. One wiki project labeled it as a “start.” The discussion is very minimal.