User:Angela.sanchez207/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: (link)Talk:Bang Bang (Jessie J, Ariana Grande and Nicki Minaj song)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because it's a song that represents women empowerment and symbolizes the talent women offer to the music industry.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The article does include a Lead, it describes the topic clearly but it's overly detailed. It should be a brief description, to help the reader get an idea that they are in the right link. Writing too much information in the Lead can overwhelm the reader and it can the affect the structure of the article. Overall the information is well written and is present in the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Most of the information in the article is relevant, it provides general information of how the song was recorded, who were the participants, how many awards did the song win. But there is information that does not belong in the article, in the section there is some stories that explain what kind of personal conflicts the artists had with each other while recording the song. This example makes the article a bit informal due to the fact that the readers and the article is about informing clear and concise information about the song, not explaining problems between the artists. That should be for Celebrity news to inform or other platforms.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral, it does not have a persuasive tone it represents each aspect of the article neutral. It focuses on presenting the creation of the song and getting to know the singers and composers who made a project into world-wide hit.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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

The links are organized by number all the sources date back to when the song was released in 2014 but they are still available. The sources have minor information abut the song but they support the article really well. There are plenty of secondary sources in the article. In terms of the sources and references the article is well organized. There is around 147 sources form different authors around the world, specifying the success of the song. I was impressed by the sources it helps the reader get a better understanding of the article.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is and well organized it has a clean divided section of each type of information it has a good structure in terms of the content and explanation. It is clear, however it has overly detailed information.The article includes many charts that have the records of the progress of the song and the artists with is very helpful to readers. But it has a very good grammar structure, it has many sections but the sections are well organized are clear.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

In terms of images it only has one, it informs the reader who are the artists. But it does not enhance the understanding of the topic. The article does have many charts, this helps the structure of the article.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The article is rated C-class, the talk conversation is active and many editors are participating. They all had a very respectful tone and were open to any constructive criticism and notes to improve the article.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The articles last edit was on June 2020, the articles strengths are the sources, the organized structure and the grammar skills. However the over detailed information can be improved, adding more visuals could strengthen the reader's interest in the article.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly 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: