User:Lingedit717/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: Voiced retroflex fricative
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article is straightforward and thus perfect for beginner evaluation, topical apropos of our unit last, and a matter of personal familiarity - I'd looked into the subject a few months back in pursuit of bettering my Chinese pronunciation.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The first two sentences of the article describe concisely what the voiced retroflex fricative is and how it is represented in phonetic systems, though this description omits the features that make the phoneme unique.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections - it is but two lines long, serving only to introduce and give basic information about the topic.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead mentions that the IPA symbol for the voiced retroflex fricative is "formed by adding a rightward-pointing hook extending from the bottom of a z (the letter used for the corresponding alveolar consonant)." This information is neither cited nor brought up again later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise, perhaps too much so, lacking again any sectional descriptions and describing only briefly the topic matter; a look at similar articles, however, reveals that most all leads for phonemes are very cursory.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article does a very good job of staying on topic and, to my eyes, never significantly digresses.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content appears up to date - nothing stands out as outmoded, information comes from sources as recent as 2018, and the nature of the topic matter, a single phoneme, decreases the likelihood that facts regarding the subject will change significantly over time (these phonetic classifications have existed for a long time).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Again, there is no content that doesn't belong, but not all of the words listed in the occurrence table have pronunciations; this information is "missing" but understandably so.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This information does not deal primarily with any historically underrepresented populations or topics and appears to do a fair job of providing a vast selection of languages in which the phoneme occurs.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral, and the subject matter makes it so there is less "reason" and space for bias in the first place.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No claims appear particularly partisan.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented, but not all languages in the occurrence table have multiple words or notes; this is likely due to a lack of native or proficient speakers willing to contribute and not some innate bias.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article is very objective and unpersuasive, laying out only the facts.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, the entire lead, features section, and portions of the occurrence table are uncited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are not thorough - again, only a portion of the languages in the occurrence table have references, and, unlike similar pages, there is no source for the features.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current, dating to as recent as 2018; as mentioned earlier, information on this topic is not expected to have changed significantly in the last few years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and, though there is no emphasis on specifically including historically marginalized individuals, several do pertain to more unusual languages.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All links checked were functional.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well-written - I had no comprehension issues.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * To my knowledge, the article is written in perfect English.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The page is well-organized, though, as mentioned above, the lead contains no overview of the article' main sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article contains no images, but there are enlarged depictions of the two phonemes in IPA.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The two depictions are appealingly laid out, sitting on the right side of the screen above technical information.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are two people questioning if this sound is (a variant of) another sound (the answer was no in both cases) and two people raising doubts about the accuracy of certain words in the occurrence table (one word was removed and the other inquiry as yet unanswered).
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated C-Class on the quality scale and Low-importance on the importance scale. It is a part of the Linguistics/Phonetics (Phonetics Task Force) WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Though Wikipedia covers it in greater depth, the subject is discussed almost identically to the way we've talked about it in class, e.g., with a list of features, an IPA transcription, auditory examples.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article deals with a simple, straightforward topic and thus its brevity can be largely overlooked, especially in light of the detail and relevancy of its contents. However, the lack of citation renders the entire article relatively weak.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article covers all essential information and provides numerous examples of the phoneme as used in various languages across the world, never digressing from the topic itself all the while.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article's main weakness, by and far, is its lack of citations and selective sourcing. An overview of sections ought to be included in the lead as well.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article itself is fairly complete - it reads well, is concise, and contains all crucial information; beyond the sourcing issue mentioned above, the inclusion of an audio clip for the voiced retroflex non-sibilant fricative would do much apropos of clarity.

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 — ~
 * What are the sources for the feature lists of both the sibilant and non-sibilant voiced retroflex fricative?


 * Link to feedback: