User:Aisg05/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

Evaluate the article
Lead Sections:


 * The first sentence completely describes the topic of the article
 * It does not talk about the other section that are in the article, like the history, context, implications, or pop culture
 * It does not talk about the publication date or how much he earned but its mentioned in the lead section
 * It is concise

Content:


 * History and pop culture was relevant, but the other sections, context, implications were not super relevant to the article
 * It is pretty up to date with the most recent edit being September 19, 2023
 * The section of implications doesn’t really belong, there is info that really isn’t needed. There really isn’t any information that is missing
 * It doesn’t really deal with equity gaps. The only thing would be what we learned about the author and that he contributed to the New Yorker. It doesn’t address anything about underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance


 * The beginning of it is neutral up until the implication section. That section deals more with what the author of the article is getting out of the cartoon versus staying neutral.
 * The article doesn’t really show viewpoints except for the implications section. It does give a few viewpoints of Sherry Turkle.
 * The cartoon in itself might be trying to sway people but that due to it being a cartoon. The article itself does not try to sway anyone.

Sources and References:


 * The sources used seem to be reliable. Except for sources 11 and 14 which don’t seem to be necessary for the article.
 * Yes the sources are thorough, all of the sources talk about parts relevant to the topic, such as the actual cartoons, the author, or the New Yorker
 * Yes the sources are current, the most recent sources are from around 2010-2017
 * A few of the sources work, while a couple of them do not work

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * Yes it is concise and is easy enough to read and understand
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors within the article
 * It is well organized and they split it within sections that make sense

Images and Media:


 * It includes the cartoon so yes it is relevant to the topic
 * The images are well captioned and explain what is being shown
 * Yes they adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * The images are laid out well in a visually appealing way

Talk Page Discussion:


 * There is not much going on, the last update/conversation was from 2016, which was the ones adding the unnecessary links
 * It is rated good, it is part of a Wikiproject called “articles for creation”  “Computing internet” “internet culture” and “sociology”

Overall Impression


 * The status of the article says that it is a good one
 * The strengths are being concise and getting to the point
 * The article could be improved by staying on topic, not sharing their thoughts on implications, and using relevant information
 * It is underdeveloped, could use more relevant information

Which article are you evaluating?[edit]
TikTok Billboard Top 50

Evaluate the article[edit]
Lead Sections:


 * Concisely and clearly describes the topic of the article
 * Does not introduce the article's major sections
 * Contains only information talked about in the article

Content:


 * Relevant, up-to-date content
 * Mainly lacking in amount of content
 * Does not deal with one of wikipedia's equity gaps

Tone and Balance


 * Neutral tone
 * No bias or persuasion tactics

Sources and References:


 * Facts were all backed up with relevant reliable sources
 * Sources are new and up-to-date
 * References reflect the content of the article
 * Links work

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * The article is well written and easy to read
 * Very concise, maybe too little information
 * Only one section below the lead
 * Grammatically correct

Images and Media:


 * No images or media

Talk Page Discussion:


 * No discussions on talk page

Overall Impression


 * Strengths- all of the content written is true and backed up with credible sources
 * Needs improvement; underdeveloped
 * Additional content, other sections, images