User:Turambar10/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: Constructed script
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I've always been interested in the construction of languages and breaking them down to their most fundamental aspects. Constructed scripts are interesting to me and I think I'll enjoy researching and evaluating the existing article. Plus, the existing article cites no sources, so I can provide a service and actually have a large impact on the article as I edit it.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, though it could be more concise
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? A list of example languages
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Could be slightly more precise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content up-to-date? Last Edited 15 May 2020, so relatively current
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Plenty of content is missing, since the topic is quite wide. There are many things that could be added
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Is the article neutral? Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
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? No, there are no sources
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? N/a, there are none
Are the sources current? N/a
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? n/a
Check a few links. Do they work? n/a

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Fairly concise
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? No, the existing points mostly list examples of languages, and the page is mostly examples rather than explanation of the major points of the topic

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there are a few.
Are images well-captioned? Yes
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, as far as I could tell
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not entirely, though they aren't arranged in an unappealing way. Fairly neutral

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talks pages are fairly standard, but all old (between 2004-2017). The last edit was may 2020, but I can't see a talks post for it
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Part of 2 WikiProjects, rated B, and high-importance
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

What is the article's overall status? B status
What are the article's strengths? Lots of examples and fairly good framework
How can the article be improved? Expanding on the general points and adding citations, since the article has 0.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? fairly well-developed, but missing all sources.

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 — ~~~~