For my Wikipedia evaluation, I looked at the page on the Nahuatl languages of the Uto-Aztecan language family. The article began with a concise summary of what the Nahuatl languages were, and then branched off into the history and current status of the language, as well as the different branches and geographical locations that Nahuatl is or was spoken. I thought that the page was well organized. After a couple paragraphs of basic information, there were additional sections for the terminology of Nahuatl’s many varieties, a deeper look into its history, and multiple sections that broke apart learning the language.
I found the article to be unbiased and written with a very neutral tone. Then again the article did not cover a very controversial topic, so it was easier to stay unbiased. I also found that the content on the page was evenly distributed between each section. The vocabulary section could use a little more information, but for the most part every aspect of Nahuatl was thoroughly covered.
The links I checked brought me right to the correct pages. These pages were relevant to the Nahuatl language, and unbiased sources. One link brought me to the “General Law of Linguistic Rights of Indigenous Peoples” which laid out the linguistic rights and regulations of indigenous people. There were two links of people’s names within the article that did not have a page set up yet.
To see if this article was up to date, I checked the modern history section, because I thought that would be the most prone to change. Most of the sources were from the early 2000’s. I didn’t see any sources from after 2010. I think this could possibly be an area that could use an update, since indigenous rights and support have changed a lot since the early 2000’s.
The talk page identified the Nahuatl section as one of the best articles featured on Wikipedia, which verified my positive overview of the page. I also found that the page was completed in 2008. The talk page had some edits, but I’m wondering if it could use a little more updating in some of the more current sections of the page.
Overall, this was a very good article that did a great job breaking down all aspect of the Nahuatl language in an unbiased way. The citing was accurate, and in the information was distributed fairly evenly throughout the sections. I think the current history and status of the language could use a little updating, but nothing on the page seemed to be inaccurate.