User:Acw5507/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Courage the Cowardly Dog
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I went to the C-Class articles list and looked at the animated shows list. I'm really interested in cartoons and thought this might be an interesting article to edit. I also felt that because media and media platforms have been a subject of discussion in class, it is connected to our content. If it's not relevant enough please let me know. (note: I used the guiding questions as notes for the actual evaluation, you can ignore my answers there)

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It's fine--it basically just states what the show is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really. It introduces the show, then describes the creation a little bit. It doesn't touch on other sections too much.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is pretty concise and seems appropriate relative to the overall size of the article.

Lead evaluation
The lead is appropriate in introducing the basic information about the show. However, it is stylistically very awkward and a rewrite is needed. Many sentences are too long and and poorly structured. It also doesn't introduce the article's major sections other than the show's creation. I do feel that the lead is concise enough and of appropriate length.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? To get an idea of what a TV show article should look like, I looked at the Friends Wikipedia article to compare the format. Outside of the "Premise" section, the Courage article doesn't say much about the show's content, so the article feels a little empty overall.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The show ended in 2002, so it seems up to date enough.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Again, it really feels like there needs to be more about the show's actual content instead of just the production, etc.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

Content evaluation
I compared this article to more complete and developed TV show articles to get an idea of what it should look like. I felt like there was very little description of the show's actual content, making the article feel empty. The Friends article included summaries of what happened in different seasons, so I felt that my concern was well-founded. Information about the show seems appropriately up to date-- it ended in 2002 and the article touches on more recent discussion of reboots. The information overall seems relevant, but I saw in the Talk page that someone previously removed information that did not belong.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it mostly just goes over the history and production of the show.
 * 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? No

Tone and balance evaluation
There's not much to be biased about given the subject, but in the original author's main comment, he says he feels like it reads like a fan site, which I kind of get. It doesn't really feel like an encyclopedia article. It is overall neutral at the very least.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are many citations that appear to be credible, mostly media sites which I would think are good sources on the topic.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Many of them are media databases, which seem to be more credible sources on this particular subject.
 * Are the sources current? Yes. I was surprised to see sources dated as recently as 2019, given that the show ended years ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are 33 different entries from a range of sources and authors. I can't tell from the given information if these authors are historically marginalized.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seemed pretty okay to me, but it was mentioned in the Talk page that in previous edits some bad sources were removed. At one point there was apparently mention of a Courage/Scooby Doo crossover. One of the editors removed it as the source was just a fan site. The original author appears to just be a passionate Courage fan and not a very academic writer. In "tasks awaiting attention", one of the items is sources and better citing of them. I guess this goes to show that even though there appeared to be a decent number of sources and inclusion of some databases, sources need to be checked thoroughly.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It's easy to read. I feel that the voicing and general style is a little awkward at.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I don't see what I would call "errors". Again, the style is awkward. For example, a sentence in the first paragraph under 'Premise' reads: "After he is found in an alleyway by Muriel Bagge (Thea White), a friendly, sweet-natured Scottish woman, she decides to take Courage in as her own, and was inspired by the nature of this first meeting to give him his name." I'm not sure if this would be considered grammatically incorrect, but this sentence is long-winded and clunky.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections and organization seem appropriate.

Organization evaluation
The article is mostly clear but not very well-written. The style is awkward. For example, a sentence in the first paragraph under 'Premise' reads: "After he is found in an alleyway by Muriel Bagge (Thea White), a friendly, sweet-natured Scottish woman, she decides to take Courage in as her own, and was inspired by the nature of this first meeting to give him his name." This sentence feels very long and clunky--there are many like it. The original author feels it needs a total rewrite, and I agree with that. The overall organization of the article is fine, as it is broken down into appropriate and relevant sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No. The main image is just a picture of the show's logo.
 * Are images well-captioned? There is no caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it is public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image in the entire article and it is of the show's logo. It is public domain. The article would benefit greatly from more images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The original author seems unhappy with the article and has given up on it, as indicated under "final comments".
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as C-Class and is part of 8 WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It focuses on this piece of media as a form of network television and doesn't discuss availability on streaming platforms. It would be worth mentioning that modern viewers can access the show through Amazon.

Talk page evaluation
The Talk page was actually really funny, in my opinion. Based on the comments, it is apparent that the author had a tendency to use fan sites as sources and other people had to fix this. The main editor of the article replied to the author's main comment and asked for clarification on several things (there were some sentences that didn't really make sense). The article's rating is overall quite poor (C-Class) and only one person has edited it--minimally. It seems that this particular article just hasn't received very much attention.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Very weak
 * What are the article's strengths? It contains basic information organized into appropriate sections.
 * How can the article be improved? More description of the show's content, stronger overall style, and more images
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The original author is unhappy with it and there have been few edits. It is poorly written and underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
The article is not very good. It's not very academic in nature, the sentences are awkward, and it's underdeveloped. The author has given up on it, stating that it needs a total rewrite and he had a lot of trouble finding good sources as he was writing. The one person that has edited it also seems to have given up. It is an appropriate length and mostly contains relevant information, but the weaknesses outweigh the strengths. There are almost no pictures and little discussion of the show's content as well.

Optional activity

 * 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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: