User:Adrianofdez/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.


 * Pseudoscience: Pseudoscience
 * I have chosen this tittle to evaluate because pseudoscience is a polemical topic that has been the object of discussion in the scientific community for decades and it seemed interesting to learn something new while evaluating it's content

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?:
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?:
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?:
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?:

Lead evaluation
The lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly and concisely describes the article's topic. At the same time, it includes a brief discussion of the articles major sections and leaves out information not covered in the article while being concise and not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is very complete and relevant to the topic in question. It is also very updated and all the content is very punctual and necessary. The article does not let out any relevant information about the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very neutral. It does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way and there is no biased information at all. All viewpoints are balanced and do not tend to be underrepresented or overrepresented.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All facts are backed up by a reliable source of information and these sources reflect the available literature on the topic. This sources are updated and all the links I checked worked perfectly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is very easy-to-read and clear. It has nearly perfect grammatical and there is no spelling errors. On the other hand, the article is broken down in major sections and this sections reflect the major points of the topic

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article includes images that enhance the understanding of the topic, and are laid out in a visually appealing way. Although, being pseudoscience an abstract concept, there is no high volume of images. This being said though, this images are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Most of the talk in the talk page is about several contributions done to the article. Some examples are anti-vaccination campaigns and alchemy. It is rated as a Level-4 vital article and it follows the guidelines of the course.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article stands a masterpiece for an example of how to write a complete article on Wikipedia. The main strength of this article is the easy-to-follow sections, with emphasis on the main points of the topic. It has been improved by several editors and I believe it has been optimized to be nearly perfect. It is a very complete, well-developed 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: