User:Superduperdog/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: Linguistics and the Book of Mormon
 * Although I am not Mormon, I'm from Las Vegas and there are several Mormons who live there. I find their religion to be very intriguing and I wanted to learn more about their beliefs and how language pertains to them specifically.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic as it pertains to Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Yes, the Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections in the Contents section. The Lead doesn't include information that is not presented in the article, everything presented is later elaborated on. Yes, the Lead is concise but doesn't include a ton of details.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic. Yes, the content is up-to-date (the best it can be considering the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th century). No, I have not found any content that is missing or that doesn't belong thus far. No, it doesn't seem like the article deals with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps or relates to historically underrepresented populations or topics.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the article is neutral from what I can tell from just reading it. No, there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position due to the specific sources provided for all of the claims made in the article. It doesn't seem like there are any views overrepresented or underrepresented. No, the article doesn't persuade the reader in favor of one position.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Yes, all facts provided in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information listed in the Notes and Reference tabs at the bottom of the page. Yes, the sources are thorough and they are current. Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. All of the link seem to be working properly.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the article is very well-written. It is very concise, clear, and easy to read with headings, etc.. No, the article doesn't have any outstanding grammatical or spelling errors. Yes, the article is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

No, the article doesn't include any images except for a picture of the actual Book of Mormon. Yes, it is well captioned as the article is a mere part of a series on the Book of Mormon. Yes, the one image does adhere to the Wikipedia copyright regulations. The image is at the top of the page.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are many people changing the external source links and talking about Brian Stubbs, who is an author cited in the resources topic. The article was nominated for deletion on two different occasions but ultimately voted as a keep. It is apart of three WikiProjects; WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Linguistics, and WikiProject Latter Day Saint Movement.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article's strengths are discussing the Book of Mormon linguistics and how it relates to the controversies about how it is written. It does a good job of touching on all subjects about the origin of this book. It can be improved by the sources listed and how they are relevant to the topic as discussed on the Talk page. Yes, I would say the article is well-developed for the most part, the only thing I would change is to add more images and recheck all sources used.


 * 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?

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: