User:Moira Sullivan/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mock language

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I went through a series of links, following relevant topics in the Anthropological Linguistics category. I chose this article because the title/subject seemed interesting.

Evaluate the article
This article is noted in the Talk page as being a "C-class" in the quality scale, which is an evaluation I agree with. This article is very poorly written, especially for a Wikipedia article. Overall, this article uses terms and phrases that are difficult to understand, either from being poorly constructed or from using too much jargon. The lead is unclear and does not adequately summarize the sections of the article. While the article does do something to highlight an issue relating to underrepresentation and equality, this point is lost in the fact that the article is too poorly written to get its point across and in that it is written like a persuasive essay, with emphasis being placed solely on one point of view. The article is not at all neutral and makes no attempts to present simple facts and research on the topic, often using weighted words and phrases that heavily imply a particular moral or ethical stance. In many places, moral viewpoints are stated as if they were accepted facts and are not cited. In fact, this article is overall greatly lacking in citation. The citation present is not all misused, but seems to rely heavily on research done regarding particular communities and inequalities, rather than balancing source dealing with issues of inequality with sources that simply explore the topic phenomenon neutrally. There are many examples of direct quotes from sources being used in the article; these quotes are directly pasted into the body of the article, without being set apart from the text and without in-text citation. There are images, but they are used as examples of the topic that seem shaky and unsupported by data. There are no entries or discussions in the Talk page; the Talk page only includes information from Wikipedia about the quality and project domain of the article as well as the account name of the article creator.

This is a bad article. There are some ideas that may be able to be salvaged or used as a jumping-off point for editing, but otherwise this article needs to be almost completely rewritten.