User:Aamarain/Evaluate an Article

Lead section
A good lead section 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.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes.


 * 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? (It shouldn't.)

No.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead was concise because it gave a quick description of what the topic is as well as a quick run down of the three main parts that will be discussed in the article.

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.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes -- goes up to August 19th 2021.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No, I did not find any.


 * 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.

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.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?

Yes.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I did nit think any viewpoints were overrepresented, or underrepresented.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

I did not see any.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

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.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Most of the facts are backed up some are cited by other Wikipedia articles.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes they are.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes it seems so because there are 28 sources and they are written by a bunch of different authors including authors that seem to be historically marginalized individuals.


 * 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.)

I could not find any better sources available than the ones used, because the topic is not very popular so there are not many sources.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes I did check and they did work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

None that I could find.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No there are no images.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Cannot answer because there are no images in the article.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Cannot answer because there are no images in the article.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Cannot answer because there are no images in the article.

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.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There were no conversations about this on the Talk page.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

I could not find a rating of this article and it is not part of any WikiProjects.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

We did not really discuss this topic in class.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

It is very informative.


 * What are the article's strengths?

A strength of the article is how it gives good descriptions about different terms and parts of audience theory.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article could be improved with addition of images and more examples about the theory instead of just descriptions.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I would say the article is well-developed.