User:Mollyanne99/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: (link)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
LENA Foundation: LENA Foundation
I choose this article because the research lab where I am a research assistant uses LENA recording devices on our home visits with 6 month old babies. I saw the LENA mentioned in the Wiki C-Class page, and it caught my attention

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- No, "close opportunity gaps" is very vague
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, it seems biased
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is concise, but it doesn't seem to explain well exactly what a LENA device is or does. It could use some revising.

Needs revision, good length

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- yes
Is the content up-to-date?
- Most of it seems to be, content has been updated recently
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- what seems to be missing is citations for the "research findings" section
- I also think that the "scientific background" could definitely be longer

Is the article neutral?
- it seems to be, this is mostly an explanation of this software and company
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- it definitely seems like the LENA foundation does advocate, specifically for its own product and research, but the Wiki article itself doesn't seem to be biased
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?
- the article doesn't, but the LENA foundation does

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- No, I don't think the "research findings" section has enough cited sources
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, they seem to
Are the sources current?
- The ones that I looked at are; they seem to range from historical literature on this topic to more recent findings
Check a few links. Do they work?
- the ones that I checked do

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- yes, it isn't trying to be too scientific or convoluted
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- it seems to be alright
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, very well-organized, clear and interesting

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- yes, but I think the images could be bigger
Are images well-captioned?
- yes, very well
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- as far as I can tell?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- they could be bigger, but I do like how the page isn't clutter with a ton of diagrams or scientific images - it isn't trying to be a research article but just a layman's explanation of a foundation and its product

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- there doesn't seem to be any conversations going on around this page - the only points on the page seem to be made by a wiki cyber-bot
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- it is rated C-class Of Low Importance in the Linguistics/applied Linguistics and Autism projects
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- Since this page is more about a foundation and a product that support a theory, I think it should be evaluated differently than a page simply on a topic of linguistics. There could be more in this page pertaining to the different areas of linguistics that the LENA and its products explore

What is the article's overall status?
- this article seems to be in progress, but definitely unfinished, specifically in terms of the research and findings section
What are the article's strengths?
- the article seems to present a foundation and product in an unbiased and clear way - it is easy to understand
How can the article be improved?
- more sources could be added, and in general more information could be presented
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 in that it isn't finished or complete

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 — ~~~~