User:Samaraghali/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article to evaluate because it is relevant to the coursework, and I'm very interested in languages not communicated with words, but rather with different sounds like whistling, utilizing drum beats, etc. It matters because it is an important glimpse into a history where communicating over long distances could not simply be achieved with the advanced technology we have access to today. My first impression of it was an article on the shorter side (meaning it is probably under researched) and that was intriguing to me, and at the core I just thought it was interesting at first glance.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
[edit]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? Yes
- Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
- Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
- Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise
Content
[edit]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? Yes
- Is the content up-to-date? Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No
Tone and Balance
[edit]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 from a neutral point of view? Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
- Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Sources and References
[edit]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? Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but more work can be done here
- Are the sources current? Yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It seems so
- 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.) The links utilized are reliable, but I have found others that may also be helpful, such as an NPR story about this language.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
Organization and writing quality
[edit]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?
The article is definitely a digestible, concise read.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The "Concepts" section could be improved, for example, I wouldn't start a whole section paragraph with "Sara Jones says...." but that's also just a me thing. However, I do think some of the concepts felt unnecessary to have included. Circulation makes sense, while critical literacy could have been tied into the Politics section. Memory and Kairos belong moreso in the "Rhetoric" page. Also, I hate to say it, but technofeminism probably doesn't belong here either. If you can use digital rhetoric to take on any scope or lens - it seems strange to focus solely on one scope (IE techno feminism).
Images and Media
[edit]- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There were no 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
Talk page discussion
[edit]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? I thought the talk section trying to expand on politics outside of America was interesting. Otherwise lots of talk about the organization and citations
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I do not know
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not that greatly so far
Overall impressions
[edit]- What is the article's overall status? Short and could use more elaboration and research.
- What are the article's strengths? Good references, written in a digestible way, interesting and flows nicely.
- How can the article be improved? This article could use more development and more sections. Descriptions seem too short.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is definitely underdeveloped and needs more thickening.
Examples of good feedback
[edit]I think this article could use some photographs of the geographical location where this language is spoken as well as action shots of those who speak it whistling. On top of this, there is a lot of potential for this article, but it needs more information, and must be expanded. There are some good, reliable sources out there to make this possible, and they should be utilized for this purpose.