User:Natwill78/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating an article entitled "ASL interpreting". Here is a link to the article: ASL interpreting.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article to evaluate because interpreting is an important part of a hearing person's interaction with Sign Languages. I think that it is vital for the hearing community or those in need of interpreting services to have a solid understanding of the role of the interpreter because this will inform their behaviour and interactions with the Deaf community. Moreover, it will give them an appreciation for the difficulties and benefits that an interpreter faces, leading them to appreciate them more fully and also possibly make adjustments to facilitate their jobs.

My preliminary impression of the article was that it contained a satisfactory amount of information and, even as a student of ASL, managed to teach me new facts and elucidate concepts in ways that I had not encountered before. That being said, I do believe that, overall, it had a sort of focus on the negatives of interpreting, such as the struggles that interpreters face. While this is undoubtedly relevant and crucial to understand, perhaps an expansion of the section on "Notable Interpreters" would have been nice and a section on the benefits of the job. That was my first thought after reading the article in its entirety.

Evaluate the articles
Lead Section:

The first sentence is not related to interpreting, rather, it introduces American Sign Language to readers. While this is useful, I may suggest somehow melding the first, second, and third paragraph in this article to just form one nice introductory paragraph. This would clarify the article's purpose while still providing relevant background information (as I understand that it is important not to presume that everyone will have the same base knowledge). This could be done in a more concise way than three larger paragraphs that separate the two concepts that are clearly interlinked. Starting off with the concept that readers have clicked on this article for is important, I think. I understand separating things out into chunks in a logical way, however, I think the opening could effectively meld these ideas together. It would take a lot of conscious decisions about what to include and what not to, and how to condense information when you may feel like it already has been condensed, however, I think it could be streamlined. I especially believe this because there are lists that could perhaps be simplified along with a notice from Wikipedia about a need for clarification. A second paragraph may be needed to introduce the flow of the article as, right now, the lead does not provide an overview of what is to be discussed It is rather the "Contents" tab that does this alone. I do not think that the lead presents anything that is not present or is not relevant to the article. I do think that the grand majority of what has been chosen to be in this introduction is relevant and well thought out.

Extra comment: Directly above the lead section is a notice from Wikipedia stating "This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation and footnoting. (April 2018)". As a reader, this did not instill confidence in me. It was the first thing that I was confronted with when looking for clear, unbiased, and thorough information on the topic.

Content:

The content is indeed relevant to the topic. I think that, although I did feel that I left from reading the article with a deeper understanding of the role of an interpreter, the status of the world of interpreting, and the social nuances and barriers that those utilizing the services may face, I did miss more of the Deaf perspective. It felt as though several hearing people wrote the article. This perspective is vital for those looking into the topic to encounter. It will allow them a more well-rounded and considered explanation.

The content is quite up-to-date, I would say. Perhaps at the very end when they make reference to interpreter burnout, it may be helpful to boost this section with a newer study, if one exists. The studies included were conducted in the 1990s.

Like I said, an overall look-over from a Deaf person would be very helpful. Moreover, a section on the Deaf experience with interpreters could be very illuminating. I have just completed the third unit of the Sign of Respect programming (which was all about interpreting). The facts and figures in this could help bolster the article up and give a more even view of the situation.

I did not notice anything that struck me as not belonging.

The article is dealing with an underrepresented group, thus, like I said, I think it should more heavily feature their voices as they are a constant in people's interactions with and use of interpreters. Also, their input should be made clear.

Tone and Balance:

I do think that the tone is appropriate, however, it would be helpful to hear from more Deaf people and even these notable interpreters if these groups have been involved in studies and reports. It is not necessarily a biased article nor does it attempt to sway readers one way or another but it does, at the moment, concentrate a fair amount on the challenges faced. While it approaches this topic in an informational way, I would suggest including a section on the benefits that interpreters enjoy. If a prospective/current interpreter were to look at this article, they may not be entirely happy with the framing of it.

Sources and References:

Ideally, I think there would be even more sources and references used and they will not be in need of fixing (like some of them currently are). I was happy to see scholarly sources listed and Gallaudet specifically in the references. This instills confidence in me as a reader as I know that viewpoints are being considered. The sources look thorough and the links work.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The article is easy to read, accessible as far as language goes, did not present any glaring grammatical errors, and was organised in a way that I found to be logical. There were a few sections with notices and I understand this to be because the writing in certain parts was a bit ambiguous because of the occasional casual register. This would be a quick and easy fix.

Images and Media:

This article does not feature any images. This may be helpful for those who are visual learners for them to really grasp the subject-matter. Seeing as the use of interpreters is a foreign concept to a considerable number of people, it may be interesting for them to see the various ways interpreting can look.

Talk Page Discussion:

There is not much conversation on the talk page, however, the feedback that has been given is useful. For example, transitions were mentioned which I had not noticed. A reader remarked that some transitions sounded like narrative English rather than more academic English, which I now see. They gave useful feedback but were the only person to do so. A variety of eyes and critiques would help this article out even more.

Overall Impressions:

I think the article is a solid introduction to the concept of interpreting, however, could use more clear Deaf voices and could use a section focusing on the positives to keep things well-balanced. Also, another thing that I noted was that in the section about notable interpreters, one of them has an introductory sentence while the rest do not. If expansion on these people could be good for the article as that little beginning suggests, then maybe this is an avenue worth pursuing. Overall, the article is informative and easy to read and a solid base that could be worked upon, such as including more positives to balance it out.