User:Matthall.research/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?

Adamorobe Sign Language

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

This was listed as a C-class article, and it concerns a sign language that is used in Ghana, but the main article Deafness in Ghana does not discuss it.

Evaluate the article

Lead. The opening sentence is strong, but there are no identified sub-sections of the article, and therefore no descriptions of major sections are provided. There is no extraneous information in the first paragraph, and the level of detail is appropriate.

Content. The references are at least 10 years old; there may be outdated information. Further, some statements (e.g. "For over a decade") reference relative timeframes, without providing absolute values. The article provides very little information about the language itself (e.g. phonology, lexicon, morphosyntax, discourse/pragmatics), although it does highlight some atypical features of AdaSL. The EGIDS value for AdaSL is not provided.

Tone and balance. No concerns: a neutral POV is used throughout, even when describing the endangerment of the language.

Sources and References. References 2-6 are all from 3 white women who are not part of the community; of these only 1 is herself Deaf. Mary Edward is another hearing woman who has worked on AdaSL; although she is also not a member of the AdaSL community, I believe she may be of Ghanaian descent. In any case, including her findings would help to make the article more current. All of the sources are scholarly in nature, although not all are peer-reviewed (e.g. conference presentations, book chapters). The link to Ethnologue only takes me to wikipedia's article on Ethnologue. The other links are successful.

Organization and writing quality. The article could benefit from being organized more clearly into sections. However, the sentence-level writing is perfectly fine.

Images and media. No images are included; for sign languages, video clips would be especially helpful if available with consent from AdaSL users.

Talk page. There has been little activity on the talk page for the past 10 years. What little activity there is includes a mix of good questions & answers, some irrelevant fluff, and some automated updates. The talk page indicates a C-class rating, with the article being part of 3 wiki projects: Deaf, Languages, and Africa:Ghana.

Overall impressions. This seems to me more like a Start-class article