User:ANA.B2004/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usarp_Mountains&oldid=1089578974

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it was the first one that I saw, and it is pretty short)

Evaluate the article
Evaluate an Article Questions: Lead: A good lead section define defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section. Questions about Lead: 1.	Does the lead include an introduction sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic? The lead does include an introduction sentence that clearly describes the article’s topic, which would be Usarp mountains. 2.	Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major sections? The lead does include a brief description of the articles major section, which is the only one they have. 3.	Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn’t) the lead does not include information that is not present in the article. 4.	Is the lead concise, or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise it gives short very detailed information. Content: A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another. Questions about Content: 1.	Is the article’s content relevant to the topic? Yes content is relevant 2.	Is the content up to date? Yes 3.	Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No all content corresponds to the topic 4.	Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia‘s equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No it does not address underrepresented populations or topics its just a simple mountains article. Tone and Balance: Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible. Questions about Tone and Balance: 1.	Is the article neutral? Yes the article is neutral 2.	Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not really it’s pretty much just naming some of the mountains and giving information about them. 3.	Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? No 4.	Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No there are no viewpoints 5.	Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not persuade in favor of one position, but it does persuade to learn more about the Usarp mountains and gives the historical history of each one of them. Sources and References:

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand when possible, this means academic and peer reviewed publications or scholarly books. Questions about Sources and References:

1.	Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they do provide references. 2.	Are the sources thorough – i.e., do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they have historical information on the mountains and some even have information about the persons that discovered them. 3.	Are the sources current? Yes the sources are current. 4.	Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? No the sources are written by one single company which is the USGS 5.	Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? They do include the people that discovered the mountains or the people that first photographed the mountains. 6.	Are there better sources available such as peer reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) no they do not provide peer review articles in place of news coverage. 7.	Check a few links. Do they work? No Organization and Writing Quality The writing should be clear and professional; the content should be organized sensibly into sections. Questions for Organization and Writing Quality 1.	Is the article well written – i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy-to-read? Yes the article is easy to read and understand 2.	Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No I did not see any grammar errors in this article. 3.	Is the article well-organized – i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is broken down into 2 different parts one of them shows the history of the Usarp mountains and the other part if names each mountain and gives information about it. Images and Media: 1.	Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes it does it provides us pictures of the Usarp mountains. 2.	Are images well captioned? Yes they are 3.	Do all images adhere to Wikipedia ‘s copyright regulations? Yes they are cited and are in the works cited (references) 4.	Are the images laid out in a visually-appealing way? Yes they are Talk Page Discussion: The article’s Talk Page - and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there - can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn’t think of. Questions for Talk Page Discussion:

1.	What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversations 2.	How is the article rated? C-class 3.	Is it a part of any wiki projects? Yes there are 4 wiki projects that It is a part of Overall Impressions Questions for Overall Impressions: 1.	What is the article ‘s overall status? Goes straight to the point and provides the information that is needed. 2.	What are the article’s strengths? It is well written and organized 3.	How can the article be improved? It is short so more information could be added. 4.	How would you assess the articles completeness – i.e. is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is developed but not enough, if it had a little bit more information it would be well developed. Examples of good feedback: A good article evaluation can take a number of forms; the most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.