User:Kattusite/sandbox

Sandbox
Content is an important part of any article. bold text is an important part of formatting. bold is an adjective related to brave.

$$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{x^2}dx$$

Link to this page.

ɖɟt͡st͡ʃt͡ɕd͡ʑɸʐ

Article Evaluation
Page: Quechan language

Relevance
Overall the page seems to be relevant and on topic. There are a couple sentences at the end of the intro that seem slightly out of place. (Namely a discussion about a film featuring songs of the language, and about translation assistance for California/Arizona elections. Perhaps if there is enough information to warrant a new heading, these sorts of facts could go there.

Currency
The most recent information in the article lead regarding the number of speakers of this language seems to be from around 2010. It seems likely that more current data are available. Aside from this, though, the article contents seem to be mostly current (as nothing particularly time-sensitive is mentioned). There seems to be conflicting data (or at least partially unclear data) on the number of current native speakers.

Improvements
The page addresses the grammar of the language relatively well, but I feel it is somewhat lacking with respect to the language's cultural contexts, or genetic history. In the case of the former, that discussion might be better suited to a page discussing the Quechan people, but in the case of the latter I see no reason not to include that sort of info on the page.

Tone
The tone appears to be neutral. I don't see any areas where the author is pushing any sort of special viewpoint or agenda. I don't believe any views are unfairly over-/under-represented, because I can't identify any non-objective claims.

Sourcing
It seems like some sources have a couple repeated citations, and it's not clear to me why this is. It seems a little confusing that the same exact source (or different parts of the same source) appear several times in the same list of References, because it seems to give the impression that the article is better-sourced than it actually is. That said, there are a handful of distinct, independent sources, all of which seem reputable, so so I don't see any reason to question the validity of the sourcing as a whole. There are a couple claims which originate through sources that may not be entirely objective (such as an announcement website for a yearly gathering), but it is hard to imagine finding a better source for that information, so I think it is acceptable. All of the links I visited seemed to be functional, and the sites did not show any obvious signs of bias.

However, I'm not sure the format of the references section is correct. I was under the impression the Notes section was intended for comments or footnotes, and the References heading should look more like the Notes section does now.

Talk Page
The page is of interest to several WikiProjects: Indigenous Languages of California, Endangered Languages, and Languages. All three have rated this article a stub.

The primary editor active on the talk page believes that certain cultural aspects of the language are underrepresented, which I agree with. They have also provided a different source to some grammatical aspects of the language, which I do not believe the original article currently cites. Perhaps information from this new source could be integrated into the article.