User:Sbelyk/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: Blackfoot language
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article to evaluate because, in all likelihood, it will be the article I made edits on for my final assignment. I might as well get a good look at it now!

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 introductory sentence of the Lead is clear and concise, and probably tells the user the basics what they were looking for. The lead covers the majority of the article's major section, but neglects to mention the major section at the end on revitalization efforts, or indeed that the language is endangered at all. The lead is fairly concise, though it focuses on technical linguistic aspects of the language and mentions only minimally the cultural or historical context of the language and its endangerment.

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 content is relevant to the topic, though I do feel it lacks information about the endangered state of the language. I looked at the talk page for the article and it seems that the bulk of discussion about the page took place over a decade ago, which makes me wonder if the article is still up-to-date, though the debates seemed to be largely about factual linguistic information, so I doubt much has changed.

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 does have a neutral tone, and seems to deal largely with linguistic technicalities of the language, which itself seems unbiased. It includes a section on revitalization efforts, but not a section on endangerment and why the language is endangered. There is no persuasion going on, and the lively arguments I saw in the talk page indicate that there's a group of people heavily invested in editing this page for clarity and truth.

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
The sources and references on this page appear thorough and up to date. Even the section on linguistics, which was being edited and debated on back in 2009, has new sources from only a few years ago. The majority of sources seems to be from one linguist, though I'm sure he's an expert on the subject. There is a good mix of physical and digital sources referenced.

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
I do think this article is well-organized and thorough concerning the structure and linguistic technicalities of the language. As mentioned above, I think it's lacking in some of the context of the language endangerment, but everything on the page seems to have been thoroughly copyedited and fact checked.

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
There are only two images in the entire article, though both are captioned and cited properly. I think the article could benefit from a few more images, perhaps examples of Blackfoot writing.

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 largest conversation is a very heated argument about whether or not to include the claims of a linguist about a language, despite the claim being disproved by other linguists. This shows me that people were very invested in the development of this article. It is marked as interest to multiple WikiProjects about languages, Indigenous languages, and endangered 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
Overall I think this is a well-done article that has had a lot of work and care put into its development. As mentioned above, I think the article could benefit from more information about the language that isn't so linguistically technical, especially as much of this information may be out of the understanding of the average Wikipedia reader. Thus, more general information about, for example, language endangerment, might make the article more valuable to more people.

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: