User:Manny.Rod1029/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and very detailed but not overly

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes - social media, women, minority groups

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Appears to be so
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I audited quite a few links and found all of them (surprisingly) to be reliable and/or publications I have heard of before.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

I found it not very easy to read. Words like 'heterodoxical field' mean nothing to me and have no Wiki link for explanation. The Wiki reads like an academic paper which is a bit of a turn off for me - I go to Wiki for easy to understand fast information.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I found


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The "Concepts" section could be improved, for example, I wouldn't start a whole section paragraph with "Sara Jones says...." but that's also just a me thing. However, I do think some of the concepts felt unnecessary to have included. Circulation makes sense, while critical literacy could have been tied into the Politics section. Memory and Kairos belong moreso in the "Rhetoric" page. Also, I hate to say it, but technofeminism probably doesn't belong here either. If you can use digital rhetoric to take on any scope or lens - it seems strange to focus solely on one scope (IE techno feminism).

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? Not really
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I thought the talk section trying to expand on politics outside of America was interesting. Otherwise lots of talk about the organization and citations
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I do not know
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not that greatly so far

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Quite developed
 * What are the article's strengths? Clear concepts, relevancy, easy to understand examples/references
 * How can the article be improved? Im a double major undergrad and if I struggle understanding a word.. idk, I do not like gatekeeping academia with such a large vocabulary.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is very developed, possibly overly developed and needs editing down

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. I honestly think theres quite a few subsections and sections that could be completely deleted and/or have some of the ideas incorporated into other sections.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }

Which article are you evaluating?
Khoe languages

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The main topic of our course is based on endangered languages and this seemed like a good article since the topic isn't super broad and has a focus, which is a group of endangered languages in Africa.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section told what the article was about by providing a little context to the topic and giving some basic background information to start off.

Content

The content presented seemed up to date and they had multiple references that were up to date and recent, but the information they presented was relatively short and nothing more than a short background on the topic since the only sections they presented was a history and classification section.

Tone and Balance

The article presented no bias and just presented facts about the topic of the languages and was neutral in how they presented the information. They showed a short history on the topic and then a way to define what the topic subject was in a very effective way.

Sources and References

The sources presented all work properly and they also are from a variety of authors that present their information effectively. The validity of the sources is definitely backed up by the content they put out. The references were all up to date and provided current information.

Organization and writing quality

Although the information presented was very short it was very well written. It was easy to read and very easy to follow along as the author made it easy to go from one sentence into the next by presenting the information effectively. Some of the names of the languages can be confusing to an average reader just because the names of the people and languages aren't commonly used but some of the other language used to write this assumes that the readers have basic knowledge on the topic.

Images and Media

There are no images in the article.

Talk page Discussion

There is no discussion at all on the talk page there is just information on the WikiProjects the article belongs to.

Overall Impressions

For the content that was presented the article was very well written but where it lacks is in the amount of information it does have. The article is very short and needs to be expanded upon thoroughly to properly give good information on the topic. The article seems quite underdeveloped and it comes directly from the amount of information presented.