User:Allerner/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.


 * History of Art Criticism: History of art criticism
 * I like art and was interested.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Is not concise, requires several rereads to fully grasp the sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Somewhat, there is not a discussion of the timeline in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly Detailed
 * Overly Detailed

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Portion on Freud does not feel like it belongs
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Division by period section does not have recent information
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some sections are only a sentence or two (Museum studies and collecting)

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Says something is "the most important in United States"
 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Lots of paragraphs do not have source information (ex: Marx and Ideology)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * More recent sources would be preferred
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some sources as old as the 1960s
 * Most after 2000, many in 2010
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Lots of links in red that do not work

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Not easy to read, sentences are drawn out and can be confusing
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Grammar issues, including lack of clear punctuation.
 * First sentence of definition section has very poor grammar
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Heavy focus on timeline of prominent methods, little attention paid to the rest of the article

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Contains images but it is unclear why they are included
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Captions are clear
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Grouped only in specific sections
 * Grouped only in specific sections

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Not much in talk, says things are well cited
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C class
 * Is apart of WikiProjects History
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Not discussed in class

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C class
 * Could be improved greatly, but what it has is not necessarily bad
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Areas that are cited are well cited
 * Conveys many ideas well, but lack of depth in some areas
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Lack of depth in many areas
 * Some bias found in the Professional Organization section
 * Some areas underdeveloped
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * MAny areas outside of the timeline could be more 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: