User:Oskilang21/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: Kristang Language
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I've learned a lot about the Kristang language already.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The article has a clear first few sentences talking about the different names that Kristang goes by as well as where it is spoken. There isn't a description of the major sections but the contents groupings are pretty clear. The lead is concise and introduces information that is expanded upon later.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The content is both relevant and for the most part up to date. There is a lot of linguistic information which is good, but perhaps more could be added about the general speaker community and the culture of language use. Maybe more could be added to the attrition section to address current attrition rather than events that happened so long ago.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article seems balanced and not biased. I didn't feel like I was trying to be persuaded while reading the article.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * The articles are reliable and mostly current. Some of the sources are a little bit old, and perhaps some newer scholarship could be added as sources. For example I think more could be added to the attrition and origin sections and there are some sources for that that could be used. I'm also not sure that all of the sources are freely accessible.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is well-written and concise. I didn't notice any spelling errors and the organization definitely made sense.


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * There aren't any photos or images added. The small charts of linguistic phenomena are well organized though.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * There are conversations surrounding specific parts that should be added or taken out. The article is rated as start class and low importance. It's part of WikiProjects Linguistics. I think that the talk page has many more specific questions and comments.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The article's status is start class. It seems that the article has lots of linguistic information and could use more information about how the language is changing. I think that the article is pretty complete, it could just use a bit more information in a few sections.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: