User:Minhngo6/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am going to evaluate the International Phonetic Alphabet topic.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) is a tool used to distinguish phonetics in a universal way. I was interested in how they are able to incorporate many languages and their phonetic usages into a single, writable standard. At first, it was overwhelming as it uses many terms to define exact motions and positions of a tongue when a phonetic is spoken, but it also makes sense since the tongue and voice are the primary sources of phonetics.

Evaluate the article
This article did a great job in comprehensively writing the topic on the IPA. The introduction contains the necessary information needed to fill the reader with basic information, including a quick history, function, and usage. The topic is accompanied by the structure of the IPA, allowing for a great visual representation to understand its function.

The content has more detail on the IPA standard and what certain symbols may represent. I noticed that there was a section on Other Representations. This is the first time that a cursive IPA is mentioned, and it will give a link to the cursive forms of the IPA. This other link does not have much information other than showing images of the cursive forms. Even though the IPA article is outstandingly well-developed, it is important to look at its connecting links to ensure they are developed too.

The Linguist section looks like it needs some improvement. The words, including "such, good, and popular" may hint bias to the reader. If this was cited from a source, then it should be clear and maybe explicit that the source said this.

Most of the sections are extremely detailed subtopics focusing on different functions of the IPA, such as stress, pitch and tone, suprasegmentals, diacritics and prosodic notation.

Overall, the entire article is even and strongly supported by over 100 references and covers most if not all the content regarding the IPA. The contents overview on the left looks slightly disorganized and may need revision to better route and relate sub content to each other. I would give this article a 9/10 as it exceeds in every section save bias and organization.