User:Ajksc/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: Chinese Zodiac
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I find astrology and the zodiacs interesting.

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? Not fully. It only discusses two of the sections: "Signs" and "In other countries."
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. It goes into where the word zodiac may have come from.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's both overly detailed and sparse. It doesn't talk enough about what they actually wrote about, but they do have a lot written.

Lead evaluation
The lead is interesting but it doesn't actually tell everything that will be discussed later in the article, making it mostly useful as a hook and not much else.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Seemingly, as the dates on the calendar charts go past 2021.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes. They describe a more specific application of the Chinese Zodiac but do not provide information under the section "Chinese Calendar" for all of the specific aspects that can be used to figure out someone's zodiac sign. They had information for years, months, and days, but not hours. If the information at the start of the "Zodiac Origins" section is meant to be for the hours, it's in the wrong place.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Content evaluation
Based on my preexisting knowledge of the Chinese Zodiac, the content seems good, but there is a massive lack of reliable resources to back up said content.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not particularly. It discuses the most popular and widely accepted story of the Chinese Zodiac, but it also has places where it discusses other takes on the Chinese Zodiac.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very neutral and it doesn't seem to be trying to convince anyone of anything.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. There seems to be a lack of reliable sources that aren't just other Wikipedia articles for several of the linked phrases.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No. There is only one "source" listed, but under the "Citations" section of "References," there are many sources listed, but many of them seem questionable.
 * Are the sources current? They seem to be current enough, as the Chinese Zodiac is very old and it's not often that new things are learned about it.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, there is only one name listed under "sources" but that writer is a female and has a last name that denotes Asian heritage.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links that I clicked on all worked, but one of them took me to a Wikipedia page that has no cited sources.

Sources and references evaluation
As stated at the top of the article itself, this article is in need of good and reliable resources to back many of the claims made within the article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It isn't exactly concise, but it is concise enough considering what it discusses. It is easy to read and the meaning of most of the article is clear.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what I saw, it seemed to be, but I might have missed something.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
The article seems like it could be organized well enough, unless my question before regarding the location of the "hours" section of the zodiac is correct in thinking a different section outside of the "Chinese Calendar" section contained that information.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so, as they're all from the Wikipedia Commons.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not particularly, but it's not bad.

Images and media evaluation
There were very few images and pieces of media used, but those used were well-captioned and interesting to view.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are a lot of comments requesting edits to be made to the page, some pointing out plagiarism and other pointing out that some links don't actually have information that relate to the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It was rated as a C-level article on the list I found it from. It isn't listed as being a part of any Wikiprojects that I could see, but it does say it's of interest of a variety of other Wikiprojects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I didn't know that this was a requirement of this assignment until just now, please forgive me.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is mostly pointing out inaccuracies and problems within the article, with some comments just being requests for more specific information that should be in the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It's currently published but in need of assistance regarding citations.
 * What are the article's strengths? Some strengths of this article are in the ease in which the various zodiac charts can be read and understood.
 * How can the article be improved? It needs to be given proper, credible sources and needs to be checked for plagiarism and possibly close plagiarism.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article seems well-developed at first glance, but the lack of credible sources and references makes it underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation.
Overall, this article needs a lot of work.

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: