User:Rgk50/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I will be evaluating the article for the Aragonese Language.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this language because I have ancestry from Spain, and I thought it was interesting that there is another language from Spain (besides Spanish) that still has some native speakers. It is a vitally endangered language according to the Endangered Language Project. For this reason it is very important to preserve and talk the language about in order to keep it alive.

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.)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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? The lead paragraph does not include a description of all the major sections, however it does precede a contents box that lists every major section and links to them.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise with a good explanation of the languages origin, history, and speakers that explain what it is without too many details. It doesn't however address every aspect of the article to come and seems as if it is more meant to be a short overview of the language itself that can be read to learn a bit about the language on its own. It does do this short background quite well.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing blatant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It is a little-known and vitally endangered language spoken by a small population.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Not Applicable
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Large group of multiple different authors.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Although mostly from Spain including some that aren't English, the sources seem quite reliable. One of them is even The Endangered Language Project (where I found the Language).
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is well written, clear, concise, and organized well.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is well organized and broken into sections for each major point.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes (in the form of maps only).
 * Are images well-captioned? The captions are okay.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Appealing Enough

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are conversations relating it to other endangered languages, translations from non-English, and questions about the language in general.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Level 5 vital article in an unknown topic, start class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In a way similar to any other endangered language.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Written well, information that is included is understandable and fairly concise.
 * What are the article's strengths? It's organized well and readable. Charts are well made.
 * How can the article be improved? Specific dialects should have more details included. For example: History, what are the differences etc.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is fairly well developed for a dying language, but can definitely be improved.