User:Aecap/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: Female Cosmetic Coalitions
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Seems interesting!

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 a concise introductory sentence and clearly introduces and describes the topic. The lead does not include a description of the articles major sections, but that does not seem necessary here. The lead references some information that is not present in the article but provides link to more information on those topics. It is a very concise lead that is 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 articles content seems relevant to the topic as it seems to cover most aspects and arguments of the FCC theory. The content also seems to up to date with the most recent research that has done on the topic. I don't notice any content missing, however the very end of the article seems less organized and clear than the beginning and body.

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 neutral and I didn't see any biased claims. It would be interesting and more well-rounding to include some of the controversy and opposing arguments of this theory that are mentioned in the beginning of the page. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way, however it is only presenting one side of the theory and could use more information on counter points to truly be neutral.

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
The facts seemed to all be backed up by reliable sources and are properly cited with working links. The article has a very long list of wide ranging sources that seem to still reflect most recent research.


 * 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 well written and easy to read. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The beginning is well organized but the end is a little harder and more vague to follow. It seems unfinished when I get to the bottom of the article because of the amount of detail about the theory and the lack there of in the second section.

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 image does give context to a topic broad up and shows the reader a visual example which is good. The figures used in explaining the FCC theory also seem to aid the written description and are laid out in a visually appealing way. The images and figures are cited correctly and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright rules.

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
Conversations on the topic mention and discuss the lack of a counterargument to this theory that is presented. It has a B-class rating and has not yet been rated on importance.

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
This article does not seem complete. It describes the theory in great detail but should consider including the other side of the story so as not to unintentionally persuade the reader that this theory is true.

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: