User:TULIPMANETANE/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

LINK: Internet slang

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I feel like there is so much to add especially now because with apps like TikTok as well as the Black community heavily impacting slang culture and internet slang.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes because they give a brief definition almost as to what it is and what other names it goes by that people may understand what it means and what it's used for.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The article has a table of contents but I don't believe that they put a description on what they would be talking about in the intro. Just more information regarding the ways in which slang is used.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No it doesn't everything mentioned in the table of contents is discussed in the article


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is concise and doesn't seem overly detailed, simple to understand however does look like more things could be talked about or even a section being added

Content


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

It is relevant however doesn't seem like it has been current


 * Is the content up-to-date?

It is up to date in terms of what internet slang is but times have changed and it doesn't seem like they have updates what current slang we have such a "slay" "on fleek" "its the (subject) for me"


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I would say there is a bit more information missing in terms of the current slang in the "Today" section as well as the "Around the World" section would could include more Afro/Black dominant countries that have heavy influence in the slang that is commonly used now in America


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

The reason I say no is because it doesn't discuss underrepresented populations and does not seem relatable because there are so many underrepresented communities that influence slang

Tone and Balance


 * Is the article neutral?

The article is neutral


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Although the article is neutral it seems like at times the page seems like they tend to favor Eurocentric but still finding a way to add Spanish and Asian Slang


 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

I believe that common American or "White" slang seems to be over-represented and minority slang is underrepresented


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Not as much but that is what I would like to include in the page so I can accurately represent the communities that are currently influencing slang


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

It does not try to persuade the reader they are informing but did not really represent other communities

Sources and References


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Information was concise and was backed up through hyperlinks on what they paraphrased


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes they do they all correlate with each other and make sense with the topic at hand


 * Are the sources current?

The sources seem current from what it looks like according to the slang and evidence they put however the slangs seem outdated but it is represented for that time


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

Yes there are authors that come from a wide range of authors and places for instance one source comes from the University of Hong Kong another From University of Toronto


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

There are good sources none of which seem random or put there as a filler citation. They all come from trusted sources


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The links in which are hyperlinked work and then citations of books when copy and pasted into a search engine work and gives you proper results.

Organization and writing quality


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article is clear and easy to read


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

From what I saw the article has little to no grammatical spelling errors


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes article is written in the same order as table of contents and is properly explained as intended

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes a standard generic photo is included but not as current as I would like


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes with the two photos included both are properly captioned and easy to understand


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes when clicked you can see who owns the photo and the link to the photo


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The images are good and are really special in anyway but the point comes across

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Seeing the talk pages I can see that people are active some people were talking about spelling erorrs, others asking for more information regarding the old slang, etc


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

I see that it is apart of Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment between 2019-2021


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

I don't recall us discussing slang yet

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

Overall is good but seems slightly outdated


 * What are the article's strengths?

The strengths are that they properly cite their sources, they have imagery, little to no grammatical errors


 * How can the article be improved?

Would like to include underrepresented groups that influence slang, update the images as well


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

It is well-developed but it just needs to be slightly updated for the times.