User:Advoretzky/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Glass art

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose an article on Glass art because I was interested in the topic and wanted to see how much it delved into the science behind it. Not surprisingly, it did not talk about the chemical/physical structure of glass. It did, however, do a fairly thorough job describing the methods of creation for some glass works as well as a few new technologies in glass art.

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?
 * Not particularly
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is fairly concise but it does lead immediately into a history of glass/glass art without starting a heading/section for it.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I think it strikes a balance of interesting level of detail without too much or too little information.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * As far as I know. It is mostly historical but I think it's possible some of the locations of artworks referenced would have changed and could be reviewed.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I didn't notice anything.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, this is a fairly neutral/non-social topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * It is not really on a matter of opinion so there does not seem to be any particular bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It definitely seems like it overrepresents Western art movements and artists.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * I don't know enough about the glass art world to know if each of the subsections is equally prevalent, but it does seem like each type of glass art got comparable coverage.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it feels generally informative rather than leading.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are a few notations of "citation needed"
 * I also noticed a few lines without a citation, such as "In the early 20th century, most glass production happened in factories." which may be properly cited in an associated article such as Factory Glass but is not cited here.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * They seem to cover a wide variety of museums, design magazines, etc. from mainly European sources but a few non-Western sources.
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I only found one faulty link to an article for "flamework"

Organization and writing quality

 * 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 noticed
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections do make sense to me.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, and it is a very visual subject so I think they are helpful.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, they include the contents and, if it is an installation, the location.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I am not sure how to check this.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not always, there are a few weirdly formatted text areas around images.

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?
 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think it is a good overview but could use more thoroughness.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Good overview of different types of glass arts.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * needs more citations/sources
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it still has a ways to go in terms of backing up info with citations and providing more examples. But the framework is solid.