User:Llill2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)Talk:Gaelic revival

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because this article is related to the course since it's about the Gaelic language, and a big part of linguistics is to study different languages. This article is important because it talks about the Gaelic revival, which was when people in Ireland tried to revive the Irish-Gaelic culture and language, and language revival is an interesting and important thing to study in linguistics. My initial impression is that this article doesn't have a lot of information about the revival of the Gaelic language, as well as information over the morphology and phonetics of the language.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This article is about an interesting topic, but it needs some improvements. From what I notice, this article seems to not have a lot of information. Most of the article is different editors communicating with each other over how to improve the article, so there isn't much content, and it's not organized in the normal Wikipedia article format. I would say that there is good discussion among the other editors. People are being respectful, always suggest changes to the group before actually making them, and explain and cite the information they would like to add. The tone is also neutral among the different editors; no one seems to have a basis. I also clicked on a few links left by the editors, and the ones I clicked on work well and come from different sources. I would say to improve this article there needs to be more information on the topic overall, as well as the Gaelic language. I would also say that the information needs to be organized in the more traditional Wikipedia outline.