User:-editedbymj/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: Cherokee language
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • This is an Indigenous endangered language of North America which is a language similar to what I am researching for this class.

Guiding questions

The lead includes introductory sentence that summarizes the basic key information regarding the Cherokee language. The lead does include a brief description of the all the major sections except for the phonology and related sections on grammar and orthography. These sections are highly detailed and not explicitly addressed. The lead is definitely overly detailed. Information regarding the specific geographic locations and solutions taken in each region to revitalize the language can be left in the major sections. The Lead does not introduce any information that is not present in the article.

• 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?

Content

Guiding questions

All the article's content is relevant to the to topic. This article address the Cherokee language of the Cherokee Nation which is a historically underrepresented population. The content is up-to-date with information regarding population of speakers being updated as of 2019. There is a slight gap in information on it's status of endangerment. The information there is repeated directly from the introduction with no real expansion on it. It instead goes into depth on how Cherokee is the co-official language of the Cherokee Nation which should be under a different section or its' own section.

• 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

Guiding questions

The article is neutral which no claims that appear heavily bias towards a particular position. The viewpoints are ones that are usually underrepresented in society and are explained without any bias towards that.

• 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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions

Most of the facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. There is a few points under the sections that were already slightly underdeveloped such as classification and geographic distribution which are missing citation to back up the facts provided. Other sections are thorough and well detailed with references and are citied to back up the information. There is also a good mix of recent and old sources for the information in the text. The sources are written by authors that are a apart of a historically marginalized groups such as the Cherokee people but most are not written by a spectrum of authors from different backgrounds.

• 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?

Organization

Guiding questions

The articles is well-written with no grammatical errors. The sections are broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic but has information that I believe could've been split into its own subsection of the article.

• 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

Guiding questions

The article contains pictures, videos and audio recording to best understand how the language is spoken and interwoven in the community specifically in Oklahoma community. All the pictures are well captioned to understand the context of the picture even while just scrolling through the article. All the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations of the photos as well. They all come from a freely license media and are cited and linked under references and through a direct link on the photo. All the images and media are laid out in a way that directly increases the appeal and depth knowledge of the Cherokee language.

• 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?

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

The conversations behind the scenes are mostly trying to clear up small errors such as missing citations or explaining their sources of this information. The article is rated as a C and is a part of the Wikiprojects: Indigenous peoples of North America, Languages, Oklahoma and United States/North Carolina.

• 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

Guiding questions

The article's overall status is listed as a C. The article's strength is it detailed oriented information especially the phonology section of the language. It is also easy and interesting to read while providing a voice for a language in unbiased nature. The article can be improved with more information to match its other sections like the classification section. Overall, the article is well-developed. It needs a little more information to fill in the gaps, but otherwise it provides a good source of information on the language.

• 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?

Optional activity

• 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: