User:Pbroskoff/Evaluate an Article

My possible articles

Article 1
(Provide a link to the article here.) North-Central American English - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I grew up in Minnesota so I have first-hand experience with this dialect. I think it would be fun to improve this page and be able to help out the page.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This is relevant to class because it involves dialect and it talks about linguistics as a whole. I do think the article is written neutrally because the topic can't really be leaning one way or another, but I would have to read it more carefully. I think it is cited properly but again I would really have to dig into the article to discover what claims need to be cited. I didn't see any talk of underrepresented groups in the article.

Article 2
(Provide a link to the article here.) LOL - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

It is an example of a text abbreviation. This is something that I use in my everyday life. I have always found text message abbreviations to be interesting. This is the highest rated article that I picked at a B level, while the other 2 are at the C level.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This article has both the linguistics component and the digital component in it which makes it relevant to this course. I think it the article is written neutrally from my initial skim, but I would need to really dig in to see if it wasn't. I think it is cited properly but again I would really have to look into the article to discover what claims need to be cited. I didn't see any talk of underrepresented groups in the article.

Article 3
(Provide a link to the article here.) Speech recognition - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This article talks about speech-to-text for technological devices. I just found this article interesting and it was rated a higher importance than the others.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This relates to class content because it combines the digital aspect and linguistic, specifically phonetics, aspect as well. I think the article is probably the most neutral out of all of them, but I would need to do a deep dive into the article. I didn't see any gaps.

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) American English - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I am in a linguistics class and this article talks about American English. The article is long and has a lot of content to go through, so I just did a brief skim of the article. I speak American English, so I found this article to be something that I do in my everyday life and something that interests me. Overall, I thought the article was well-written and clear.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

It has a good lead section with a brief overview. I can get the gist of what the article is talking about. There isn't really a discussion of the sections, but there is a bar on the side that has all of them. I liked how it started out with history because I feel like with this topic it was important to do so.

The content was relevant to the topic. As "American English" is a pretty broad topic, the editors did a good job of covering a good amount of subtopics. When I looked at all the sources cited, some of them were a little outdated (by this I mean there were a good amount from the 1990s and early 2000s, making them 20-30 years old). In my skim, I didn't see any information relating to equity in this article.

From what I can tell the sources seemed acceptable. Many were academic papers or something of that nature. I don't know a lot about the available literature relating to American English, so I don't know if the sources chosen are a good representation. There seemed to be many diverse authors. With an article this long and covering so many topics it makes sense. From what I tested all the links worked perfectly fine.

I found the article to be clearly written and understandable, even for someone who doesn't have a ton of background on the subject. I didn't see any grammatical errors as far as I could tell. I do think the article was broken up well. The sub-sections made sense in the way they progressed.

There is a big conversation going on about a claim made in the article. the claim says, "Since the late 20th century, American English has become the most influential form of English worldwide." Many are saying that the sources cited with this claim don't support this claim, and that this claim should be taken out. According to the talk page, the article is rated as C-class. The talk page just has some more academic talk in it than we do in class.

Overall, I think the article does a good job for the topic it discusses. I think its detailed explanations are defiantly a strength, but it needs some revision on some of its claims.