User:Amaniann/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Internet culture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
''I wanted to do this article because I thought it would be interesting to talk about the culture we live in today. Not only that, but I am a child of the 2000's, I was born in 2001 and I could be considered to some people as an internet child. Our society in todays world is ran by the internet, I mean think about it could you imagine how different the world would be if we did not have the internet?''

Evaluate the article
Lead section


 * 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? yes could be better
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) no
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


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

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no the article presents both sides
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? yes both
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no just informative

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? some
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? some
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes there are a variety of different authors and no they do not include historically marginalized individuals
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? most do some are not accessible

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? for the most part
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? not any that I saw
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? very few images
 * Are images well-captioned? no
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no I don't believe so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? not really

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? the conversations consist of people complaining about how the article is written.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? the article is rated a c and yes it was apart of a few WikiProjects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? it speaks more about the topic of internet culture in depth.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? the article is informative, there are a few details that I would charge for a better article.
 * What are the article's strengths? the description and detail of the points that were very in depth.
 * How can the article be improved? I would add more points such as trolling and cyber-bulling, I would also add better detail to the present topics.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? well developed for the most part.