User:Wingtip42/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
LGBT linguistics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is interesting to me. It matters because it's a whole branch, or at least subset, of linguistics unto itself that is often overlooked, and my preliminary impression of the article was that it looks very detailed and appears to have a lot of citations.

Evaluate the article
The first sentence is clear and explains what the article is about. The lead section is strong as a whole but does not point to the article's different sections.

One thing that jumped out right away was that there were large, large paragraphs of information with only one citation, and it was unclear whether that citation had to do with the whole preceding paragraph.

I felt the "transgender linguistics" section in particular gave a very "inside baseball" view of linguistic changes in trans individuals brought about by various surgeries and voice training - from the perspective of a phonetician, it would make sense, but there's no explanation of what "F1, F2, and F3" values correspond to, for instance. I think this example is already marked.

I found the section on "slang" could have been expanded and also used words like "may" to describe research results.

The article takes time to delve into "faggot" and "dyke" and how they're being reclaimed, but ignores "queer", which is a bit odd since it was mentioned in the beginning paragraph.

Overall I felt that the tone was fairly balanced and neutral. The sources look appropriate and scholarly. I tried some links and they worked.

This article lacks pictures or diagrams, but it's hard to think of a photo since the topic isn't a specific type of tree or something else concrete.

Something important that was brought up in the Talk page that I didn't notice was that bisexuals didn't get their own section. I also saw at the top of the Talk page that this page is part of a project for a school in California. I saw there was some argument about whether to call it "LGBT Linguistics in English" but that most people wanted to keep it how it was.

Overall this is a strong beginning, but I think of it as an intermediate draft. There's a lot more that could be covered. So I agree with the rating of B that it has in the Talk page.