User:AdamTski/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: Megastructures (architecture)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am interested in the topic of megastructures as they make me feel very liminal.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? No but there is a table of contents which describes all major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the information has proper citations after different claims.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and to the point. It is only about two short paragraphs.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? I'm not the most knowledgeable on the subject itself but the information provided seems to pertain to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Most of the information from citations is very old as this subject was a dominant idea in the 1960s according to the author. The most recent source is from 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Sometimes the author does make certain claims that aren't followed with any source so I'm unsure where they're are getting this from or if it's from a pre-existing source.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, it is a topic about a subtopic of architecture that was prevalent in the mid 1900s.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Not always; the author uses certain phrases like "most well-known" or "irresistible" without citations leading some personal language.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, despite the language I mentioned, their claims are fairly bias free.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? It isn't an opinion based topic so anything not covered as heavily in the article is due to a lack of resource on the topic.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it is simply informative on the topic of mega structural architecture.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of them are, some aren't (it says citation needed).
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They are thorough enough probably; each bit of info per citation is kind of short which is good.
 * Are the sources current? A few are current (in the last decade), most are very old (from about the 1970s).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? For one, they have around 15 sources and 4 are written by the same person; 2 are written by a different person. They don't include that, no.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Only a few sources have links and they work fine.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is easy to read for the most part.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, the spelling and grammar are both fine.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, they are organized well and logically based on the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? For the most part yes, there are few images however.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, and they have links for subjects in photos.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they are adjacent to topics talking about them.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? On the talk page there is one person talking about how one claim is unsubstantiated but the guy writing it (though sounding knowledgeable) doesn't come off as very respectful and sounds kind of arrogant.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a stub. It is part of WikiProject Architecture.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Well we haven't talked about it in class but considering this area is foreign to me, I can understand why it is a stub rating.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? ??? (which means it hasn't been rated)
 * What are the article's strengths? It's a good foundation for anyone trying to fill in and cite more of the claims made.
 * How can the article be improved? More citations (a lot of the info comes directly from the author)
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? (Underdeveloped but a good start for a decent article).

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: Talk:Megastructures (architecture)