User:Lessly.cortes/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: American Sign Language
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
I have chosen this article because it is very interesting to see how such a different communication system allows us to socialize with people especially deaf people. The most curious thing about this language is its origin and how people can learn it.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding question
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead of this article includes a concisely and clearly introductory sentences describing what American Sign Language (ASL) is and how it is a natural and predominant language for the deaf community in the United States. In this article, you can find a brief description in the lead of the most important sections talking about the origins of the ASL and how the grammar is very different from English grammar because they use facial expression and a productive system of forming agglutinative classifiers. The only information that the lead includes that is not presented in the article is extra information on how the American Sign Language is used in many countries including West Africa and part of Southeast Asia. This article lead is very concise because it gives you a little preview of what are you going to read, capturing the reader's attention.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Content evaluation
[edit]This article's content is relevant to the topic because it talks about the history of the American Sign Language, the population that uses this language, the geographic distribution with their regional variations. After all, the signs can change their meaning depending on the region or place where you use it, the writing system, and the grammar of this language including the syntax which is the subject-verb-object (SVO) in the sentence. This content is up-to-date, the last edit was made on May 8, 2020 updating and adding more information to the content. I think that the content of this article is complete and very concise. This article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps and the address topic is not related to an underrepresented population or topics it is rated as a high importance article.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]This is a very neutral article with no heavily biased or any claims of the information. The viewpoints are well developed and very clear on the information that is given for the reader's knowledge. The article is not trying to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. This article is structured to inform people about this language and how we can learn it and communicate with deaf people. It contains a lot of information for educational purposes for everyone interested in the topic.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]All the facts that this article contains are backed up by a long list of reliable sources that it was really impressive to me to see how well informed the editor was to make this article. Every secondary source of information is from different university investigation articles, the dictionary for the vocabulary, books, magazines, websites, news, and libraries. Every source is current and up-to-date and they make the literature available for everyone. Big diversity of authors contributed to this article, their source is trustworthy and the best thing is that they worked perfectly when I clicked on them.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]This article is well-written giving concise and clear ideas backed up with reliable sources. I found it very easy to read and understand and also expand my knowledge about this topic. It has no grammatical errors or spelling errors, everything is well-written and structured. The ideas are well organized and in every section, the main point of the topic is well covered with information.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]This article contains images and videos explaining every section and some of them are giving an example of the situation. All of the images are well-captioned and they are adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulation. The most exciting thing about these images is that they are visually pleasing and appealing which is good because they can capture the reader's eye very easily and it is very clear on explaining the concepts.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]The type of conversations that are going on in the talk pages is some suggestion about adding some information to make the article strong. This article is rated the High-important article in Wikipedia and it is verified by the page itself. Also, it is part of many Wikipedia Projects like WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Deaf, WikiProject Territories, WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Caribbean/ Barbados. I do not think there is a difference between the way Wikipedia discusses this topic with the way we have discussed in class because both are understandable and correct.
Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]The article overall status is complete in information but in the read page of the article says that you can add in more information or examples of the topic. It is classified as the best article for any educational purposes and has some strengths like correct spelling, complete information, clear and organized ideas, reliable sources, and appealing images to explain the topic or examples which makes this article strong and reliable. This article is very well developed in many aspects like the organization of ideas and examples in each section so people can understand easily and it is very complete in the information.
Optional activity
[edit]- 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 — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: