User:Natreanne/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: (Language documentation)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Language documentation is an incredibly important first step towards any revitalization efforts so it's important to know the background and basics of this process. This article is rated stub quality and needs expansion and improvement.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. Corpus, organizations, etc.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise in some areas, too detailed in others.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Mostly yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Unsure but possibly.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Some parts are, some aren't.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not particularly but it doesn't emphasize that it should be of the speech community's own accord what happens/
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Linguists viewpoint to document.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Partly yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, could be better with more information.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * 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?
 * N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Not much, a university student that edited for class and someone who modified links.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Stub-class, and WikiProjects Linguistics, Endangered Languages, and Languages
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Talks a lot about digitizing archives and the like.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Stub-class?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Strong start, lots of external links to other resources.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Adding considerable information, examples, more thorough sections.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped.

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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: