User:Ruoan/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: anthropological linguistics
 * I have chosen this article because it is related to the course anthropology 2253 endangered languages and revitalization.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It gives the definition of anthropological linguistics.

The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.

The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.

The Lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic.

The content is up-to-date.

Some content is missing. For example, the development of anthropological linguistics after 2000.

The article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral.

There are not claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.

There is a viewpoint that is overrepresented. 'Code-switching' is a subtitle parallel with 'overview' and 'history'.

The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.

The sources are thorough.

Some of the sources are current. Some are old.

The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.

The links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written. It is concise, clear and easy to read.

The article does not have grammatical or spelling errors.

The article is not well-organized. It is broken down into sections. But the order of sections is random. For example, subtitle 'overview' is after subtitle 'history'.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article does not include images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations are casual.

The article is rated start-Class on the quality scale and Mid-Importance on the importance scale. It is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology.

The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is less organized and less detailed than the way we've talked about it in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is overall start-Class.

The strength of the article is that it provides the basic knowledge of anthropological linguistics, for example, the definition and structures.

The article can be improved with better organization.

I would assess the article as 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: