User:Lihuamh/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: Dialect
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am very interested in how language and dialect usage affects individuals politically and socially. I am amazed at how people are perceived simply based on the language variety they use.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead does include an introductory sentence that gives the Greek roots of the word and introduces the two approaches to this linguistic phenomena. The lead does not include a brief description of the major sections, but rather explains the ways that dialect is used and approached. The lead does include information that is not present in the article. It moreso gives an overview of the field rather than providing an introduction into the other topics that will be discussed later. In my opinion, the lead is not very concise. It is relatively long and is over 3 paragraphs. Thus, I believe it is not concise and the information in the lead could be placed into another section.


 * 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

The article's content does seem relevant to the topic and remains consistent throughout. The content is relatively up to date, using sources that are more recent (2019) and also very dated topics. For example, from 1968, 1981, and more. I do not believe there is content that does not belong. At the end of the article, examples of various international dialects are provided. Lastly, yes, the article does address dialects in underrepresented populations in the U.S., for example, North Africa and Lebanon.


 * 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

The article remains neutral and gives factual information. Thus, I do not believe that it is heavily biased towards a position nor does it try to persuade the reader towards in particular position. There are not viewpoints that are overrepresented nor underrepresented.


 * 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
 * The article contains an extensive list of references with the article dates ranging from the 1960s to very recently (2019). Generally, most of the claims are cited, however, some claims note that a citation is needed or ask who an individual is. The sources are relatively thorough but they are also very broad as entire books are cited. The sources are indeed written by a diverse spectrum of authors for example German authors and Italian authors, too. generally, the links do work.


 * 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 is relatively concise, providing a good overview of the topics listed. Generally, it is easy to read and provides definitions of many linguistic terms used throughout the article. The article does not appear to have any spelling or grammatical errors. Lastly, I do believe that the article is well-organized and broken into sections that are essential to understanding the topic.


 * 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

The article includes one image that shows which language: standard dutch or standard German are used depending on which side of the border they are spoken as well as the broader dialects used in these countries. The image is well captioned, however, I do not believe that the image is necessary. The image does not adhere to copyright regulations, as it is not available in the public domain. It is cited, though. The image is laid out in a visually appealing way, between the text and under a header.


 * 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

The talk page has an extensive amount of conversations being held. Many edits to the information presented are debated, as some writers say that they do not agree with the claims made in earlier versions of the article and usually end up deleting/ removing information that is deemed inaccurate. The article has been rated as a C-class and is within the scope of Wikiproject languages. The way that Wikipedia discusses this topic is more in depth than what we have discussed in class and gives more examples of international dialects.


 * 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
 * Overall, the article's status is relatively high. Its strengths are its extensive examples and depth of information. The article could be improved by being more concise with some of the information presented. Lastly, I would say that the article is well- developed but many editors could still put in efforts to clarify information or to ensure that the information being presented is entirely factual/ generalizable.


 * 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: