User:Saravandyk5/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: (Endangered language)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen to evaluate this article because it includes a lot of basic definitions that are important in a class like ours so it is very important for a page like this to be accurate in order to use terms correctly, as well as have an understanding of different concepts.

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 a solid introductory sentence that defines the topic of the article. I think the lead could be considered too long and should be more concise. Some of the information could be reorganized into a later section. The lead has the contents box which outlines the different major sections which is helpful. I like that the lead includes some basic statistics for the reader.

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 main sections are categorized well and include lots of relevant information. The content includes data from Ethnologue and UNESCO which are reputable.

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 without any persuasion or bias. The article is factual.

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
There is a long list of sources in the notes section as well as a long list of properly cited resources. I checked links and they work. There are lots of links to other wiki pages throughout the article which is helpful. The article also includes the "see also" section which includes lots of similar topics such as language ideologies

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 for the most part. There are a few grammar mistakes, such as using 'effect' instead of 'affects' in text under the 'Effects' heading. It is also organized well. One comment would be that the first 4 sections have subsections but the 5th does not and could easily be broken down into the subsections of response: documentation, revitalization, and maintenance, and more information could be added to each.

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 lead includes graphs and diagrams that are well captioned, however the middle image of a Venn diagram seems either unfinished or incomplete and is confusing. There are two images throughout the article and are also well captioned. The author could include more images so the article is less text heavy when scrolling through to break things up a bit. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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
There is LOTS of talk on the talk page of this article. People share quotes and other references to include, such as The Endangered Languages Project by one user. One comment I found accuses the article of being biased in saying that an endangered language should be revitalized or saved. There were lots of comments coming to the authors defense and providing references to fact and showing that the author simply described different responses to endangerment of languages.

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 a level 4-vital article and is rated C-class. The article's strengths is that it cross references regularly and is very factual and balanced. It could be improved with more images and better section organization and a shorter lead (as well as VERY minor grammar fixes). I would say the article is well-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: Talk:Endangered language