User:Salehadian/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Machine translation of sign languages

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is related to the course in terms of computing. It is also related to accessibility, which I think is also not unrelated to the course. This is important because there are millions of people in the United States who use sign language and more people, even those who don't need it should learn it to improve accessibility.

This article is important because it provides references to the current technologies and can allow people who want to further develop this to find available resources so they can move forward with their research. My preliminary impression was that the article gives a general overview of advances in using machines to translate sign language.

Lead section
The lead section includes an introductory sentence that answers the overarching question of the reality of the technology itself, and when it was conceived. It does mention the major sections and doesn't include extra information that doesn't later appear in the article. It is also very concise and gives people a general overview of the topic.

Content
All sections of the article are roughly the same length. The only concerning aspect is that for some of the technologies listed, only a link is given rather than a brief overview of the device itself. The content does seem a few years behind but it is still within the decade and not overtly outdated. There does not seem to be missing or irrelevant content, as the article is very succinct. The article does deal with topics related to historically underrepresented groups, as deaf people are often excluded.

Tone and Balance
Overall, the article is neutral and does not use overtly opinionated adjectives or verbs. Although there is some strong wording in the limitations section to show the difficulty in translating sign language through technology without a human interpreter present. All viewpoints are represented equally. There doesn't seem to be a viewpoint from someone who is deaf. No attempts to persuade readers in any position are made.

Sources and References
All links work and come from thorough sources that are backed up by reliable secondary sources. Although they could be updated to be more current, they are not too far behind.

Organization and writing quality
The article is organized into succinct sections that are well written and flow well. There are no grammar mistakes and the language is professional, but not too high level.

Images and Media
There are no images in the article.

Talk page discussion
The article is part of WikiProject and is rated as C-class. The conversations are about the structure of the article and they compliment the writer.

Overall impressions
The article's overall status is low-importance and it is strong in its neutrality and the information presented. It is underdeveloped because there are no images and it could use from newer sources.