User talk:Lingip001
Lingip001, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Lingip001! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
Evaluating Articles and Sources[edit]
Article chosen: American Sign Language grammar
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
- Everything in the article is relevant to the topic.
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- The starting sentence of the article page is not quite neutral and does not have a citation to back up the claim that ASL is the "best studied" of any sign language.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- I don't believe there are any viewpoints that are over or underrepresented.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
- I have checked a few citations and can confirm that the links to the footnote and the references work. To check if the source actually supports the claims in the article, I randomly checked footnote 50 and searched up the source. The information was accurately represented in the article and it was not paraphrased.
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
- Although the article needs more citations, the current citations refer reliable sources. All references are published journal articles, academic dissertations, or publications such as dictionaries. Thus the sources are neutral. Yet, as I noted before the starting sentence of the article that says "ASL is the best studied of any sign language" seems quite biased without referencing a reliable source.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
- I think an area that could be added into the article is semantics of ASL. Currently the article explains the morphology and syntax of ASL in depth, but does not explain the semantics. When I quickly did a google search of ASL semantics multiple relevant search results appeared, which suggests that this is a prominent area.
Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- The Talk page of the article consists of discussions on sections to add/remove, accuracy of the information, and updates on what users edited and why they did so.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- The article is a part of 3 WikiProjects and is rated B-class on project's quality scale under all three WikiProjects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- In class we didn't talk about the grammar of ASL. However, in general Wikipedia discusses the topic in a much greater depth and is a lot more technical than our class discussions. This difference can be largely attributed to the fact that in class we are students who are not experts on the topic and did not do a lot of research on the topic. Whereas on Wikipedia users that make edits and contribute to the article spend significantly longer time on the topic.
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Lingip001, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)