User:Alicialuo/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: Social science
 * I think social science is important to human development and better living conditions.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, and it also gave relative link on the top.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes, clear but not too long and easy to understand
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no, all things include have more details in next several sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it's natural, not too long but also not very concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes the closer one from 2019
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? yes, basically no personal conclusions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes, many realiable academic journals and published books.
 * Are the sources current? part of them, it also have sources 19th and 20th centuries.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes, worked well.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes clear and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yea

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? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? almost

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? very professional and civil conversations
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? yes
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? it's referring a lot resources and mostly lasting evidences without personal thoughts

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? overall it's very good and valuable
 * What are the article's strengths? pretty, it come from a lot realible resources
 * How can the article be improved? maybe more pictures and nice-look display
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? pretty well-developed

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: