User:Wildebeez/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: Ebonics (word)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article seems to have a balance of complete and incomplete information, with notes requesting better citations. I had found this article a couple weeks ago when searching Wikipedia for interesting linguistics-related topics, and I really like the cultural and field-related nuance this page can provide in contrast to the technical content in the African-American Vernacular English page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. This article's opening sentence not only defines ebonics, but also provides an etymology of the word.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? This article only has two major sections ("original usage" and "common usage and controversy"). These two sections are mentioned in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not contain any new information that cannot be found elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is reasonably concise; it is only two sentences long.

Lead evaluation:
This article's lead is appropriately concise and detailed to introduce the topic and the article's major sections. To begin, the article's opening sentence not only defines ebonics, but also provides an etymology of the word. Then the lead continues on by summarizing the main ideas of each section without introducing new information, while still remaining brief — totaling just two sentences.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? All of the article's content is relevant to the title topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content in the article is not necessarily outdated, but all but one source is from 2002 or earlier.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content in this article is on-topic, but there are some missing discussion points that could potentially help the reader — e.g., why stigma against the word is distinct from stigma against the field of AAE/AAVE.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article directly references a sociolect of marginalized people in the United States, and uses a considerable proportion of of the article to explain how ebonics historically intersects with systems of discrimination, particularly in academics.

Content evaluation:
This article addresses a topic that is pertinent to historically underrepresented ideas about the validity of English varieties found in the African diaspora. The content of the article discusses the coining of the word ebonics to describe and legitimize those varieties of English. All parts of the article refer to the word and its usage, but some of the information may be outdated, seeing as all but one source are from 2002 or earlier. It may be worth updating the article's "common usage" section to reflect a more contemporary view of the word, and whether it is being reclaimed.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article appears to be neutral because it does not use persuasive or opinionated language. However, some viewpoints are overwhelmingly represented.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? A quote at the end of the article from Walt Wolfram seems to be heavily biased against the use of the word, suggesting the word delegitimizes the very thing it represents.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There could be more representation for people who still use or defend the word's usage, aside from the person who coined it.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There does not appear to be any persuasive language or wording in the article, even though it states repeatedly that most linguists avoid using the term ebonics in favor of AAE or AAVE.

Tone and balance evaluation:
The tone of this article is sufficiently academic and steers away from editorial or opinionated language. However, upon further examination, the article leans heavily into supporting statements from academics who discredit the use of the word "ebonics." For instance, the final paragraph of the article suggests that the word "Ebonics" trivializes the field and study of AAE/AAVE but the "why" of that statement is not further explored aside from an appeal to Walt Wolfram's authority. It may be worth mentioning that the citation for this sentence does not come from an academic publishing source. In light of this imbalance, there could be more representation for people who still use or defend the word's usage, aside from the person who coined it. There is a description of how Afrocentric proponents use the word without discussing the validity of those claims. The bulk of the article spends time discrediting the use of the word without clearly explaining why.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The article does a good job of citing information from legitimate sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources aren't entirely thorough, because the article does not meaningfully explore proponents of the word's usage, or discuss the validity of criticisms against it. But the facts stated in the article do have adequate citations.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the sources are fro 20+ years ago, but this is likely due to the fact that most scholarship on the topic occurred in the late 20th century.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? A large proportion of the sources are written by African-American authors, though most seem to be men.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I clicked through several links and they are functional.

Sources and references evaluation:
The article in its current state thoroughly cites information from legitimate sources with functioning hyperlinks, though none of the citations are particularly recent. This may be excusable because a bulk of the political and social discussion surrounding the word was 20-30 years ago, although it may be worth mentioning what the current status and use of the word is in more recent times. The existing sources draw heavily upon the scholarship of African-American authors, but I feel like finding new voices, particularly recent ones, may show a change in cultural attitude toward these words due to social movements like feminism and intersectionality.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? This article is concise and easy to read, but it does not clearly explore the arguments for and against using the word ebonics in an organized fashion.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The article does not appear to have any grammatical or spelling errors that I could notice.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article organization could use more help, because it is broken into two large sections that may read more clearly with subsections.

Organization evaluation:
The article does not have any spelling or grammar errors, and is arranged in logical sections. This makes it easy to read, especially because the topics aren't exhausted at-length. However, this brevity does leave some room for questions about why some people chose/choose to use the word ebonics while others favor AAE/AAVE. These opposing views could be better represented with smaller subsections to address each viewpoint fully.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does not include any images.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation:
This article does not include any images to help anchor the discussion. While images may lead to some type of bias, there are some topically appropriate images that could be sourced. For instance, the word ebonics was coined by a single person, Robert Williams, in a book called Ebonics: The True Language of Black Folks. It would not be inappropriate to include an image of Williams or the cover of his book to help break up the wall of text.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Wow, the Talk page on this article is hot and sizzling with contention! It seems like there haven't been any Talk contributions since 2015, and a bulk of the Talk discussion occurred in 2011-2012. Much of the discussions are about whether the article is biased, and those interactions have gotten heated due to the racial and political nature of the topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is ranked as a "Start Class" article, which means there is room for improvement. It is part of three WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class, we focus on talking about concepts within the bounds of their definitions, but this topic sprawls beyond "just" linguistics. This means that the Talk page discussion intersects with many other fields, such as sociology and politics.

Talk page evaluation:
The talk page is very spirited and has a lot of conflicting opinion. It seems like there haven't been any Talk contributions since 2015, and a bulk of the Talk discussion occurred in 2011-2012. Much of the discussions are about whether the article is biased, and those interactions have gotten heated due to the racial and political nature of the topic. Wikipedians in the Talk page seem to be frustrated with perceived political agendas (i.e., "political correctness" as one user states) enforced by other editors, rather than the academic implications of this word being either used or discouraged. In class, we focus on talking about concepts within the bounds of their definitions, but this topic is very large and expands well beyond the field of linguistics — and as such, it is an emotional topic as well. I believe the contention in the Talk page is why the article has had a hard time progressing beyond its "Start Class" rating, even though it is part of three WikiProjects: African Diaspora, Linguistics, and English Language.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is ranked as a "Start Class" article, which means there is room for improvement, without being considered a stub.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article strongly references the published thoughts of black academics, which can be rare in many field-related articles. It also does a good job of explaining a historical event that centers around the word's usage, and how that affected a school in California.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by including more robust discussion about why the term was deemed necessary for coinage and why it fell out of fashion.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped because it could include more discussion about why some use the word and why others don't.

Overall evaluation:
This article is ranked "Start Class," meaning that it could be a good starting point for readers interested in the topic, but it isn't thorough enough to be a definitive overview. The strengths of this article lie in its strong sourcing from African-American scholars, while contextualizing the word in a historical context. The article falters because it does not explain why the word ebonics was coined but seemingly pushed aside in preference to other terms. I think discussing the alternative terms and why they are preferred, especially in academia, would help contextualize the controversy around ebonics, and also provide a better opportunity to explain the viewpoint of people who still use the word. In summary, the article is off to a good start, and is decently developed, but does not provide a complete overview.

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:Ebonics (word)