User:Allenrei/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Ed Gainey)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(I chose to evaluate this article as it's the article that my group will be updating.)

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead includes a good introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic

The lead includes a brief description of the article’s major sections.

The lead does not include information that is not present in the article

The lead is fairly concise

Content

The content is relevant to the topic

The content is not up-to-date

There is plenty of missing content that could be added

The article briefly touches on historically underrepresented populations

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral

There aren’t any claims that seem to be biased

There aren’t viewpoints that are over or underrepresented, the article is really short and doesn’t have a lot of information.

The article doesn’t attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

The facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information

The sources are kind of thorough, it’s hard to say with how short the article is

The sources are a little outdated

The sources don’t really give a diverse spectrum of authors

There are likely better and more fruitful sources for this topic

The links to the sources work

Organization and Writing Quality

For how short it is, the article is relatively well written

There don’t seem to be grammatical or spelling errors

The article is fairly well-organized

Images and Media

There is only one image in the article

The image has a decent caption

I think it adheres to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations

There is only one image, it seems to be laid out properly

Talk Page Discussion

Only one person talked on the talk page, they talked about updates they made to the article

The article is part of Biography, Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh WikiProjects

Overall Impressions

The article’s status is definitely a work in progress, there is a lot of missing information

The strengths are that the article is concise and fairly well written

The article can be improved by adding more information and more pictures

The article is underdeveloped