User:Tariace/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: A language is a dialect with an army and navy
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It's a new concept to me; the article title seems abnormally long; there is a decent amount but not a lot of content

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? Yes somewhat
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Doesn't give a thorough explanation of the quip
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Relatively concise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content up-to-date? As much as it can be
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Doesn't have adequate explanation of the quip
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, no

Is the article neutral? Yes, but it doesn't address how good/bad the quip is
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Only talks about a few people
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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? Seem thorough enough
Are the sources current? Adequate, this phrase should not have changed since 2005-2010
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Seem okay
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Relatively clear
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not from first glance
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Only two additional sections -- still needs more info

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Discussion about semantics, purpose of article
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C rated, low importance, part of Linguistics
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

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? underdeveloped

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 — ~~~~