User:IsabelRM 0722/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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

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?

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?
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

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

I chose to evaluate Linguistic racism.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I am completing this Wikipedia training as a part of my Linguistics in the Digital Age class, so I thought Linguistic racism was appropriate. I also have always been interested in Linguistics because my mother has various college degrees in the field, so I just thought this article sounded interesting.

Evaluate the article

Addressing the first key aspect, "Lead Section", I think that this article meets all of the criteria laid out. First of all, the title sums up everything that will be talked about. The introduction sentence is concise and only addresses what will be elaborated on. There is no additional, unnecessary information.

The content that is included in the article is relevant to the topic, mostly using sources that address the meaning, effect, and various examples of linguistic racism. Some of the sources included are pretty outdated (2005, 1999), but more recent sources are utilized as well (2021, 2023). This topic definitely addresses an equity gap present in our society.

The article does not seem biased in any way or another. All of the statements that could possibly be interpreted as opinions are presented as an explanation of another source's opinions, and it is presented in an objective manner. It definitely addresses minority viewpoints as well.

In terms of sources, the links work, and a variety of sources are used, including scientific studies, articles written by news platforms, reviews, and so on. Marginalized communities are also included and make a significant contribution to this article, for example, Hispanic and American Indian cultures. I think most of the sources are very good, but there was one source that looked slightly odd. There could've possibly been a better alternative in this instance. A quick Google Search revealed that there were many other articles that addressed the same topic.

As far as conventions, I didn't notice any major (or any at all) grammatical errors. The article is separated nicely and distinctly, with a transition of major points occurring in every paragraph.

There are no images used in this article. I think the addition of some images could be added to improve audience engagement.

The Talk page does not have any conversations on it. It does state, however, that the article is of interest to many Wikiprojects. The article itself is a result of a Wiki Education Assignment.

Overall, I think this article is well-written, concise, and accurate. It is easy to follow as well, meaning the writing structure is well-chosen and the grammar is correct. There could be some minor improvements, such as the addition of pictures or possibly swapping out some sources for more recent ones, but other than that, I really enjoyed the read.