User:Anissagpowell/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: InfoTrac
 * I have chosen this article because I believe the content will be helpful in this particular course.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation

 * Yes, the first sentence introduces the topic in such a way that the reader knows exactly what they will be learning.
 * No, the article does not include any major sections besides references and external links.
 * No.
 * The lead is overly detailed. It is several dense paragraphs, that could easily be split into major sections rather than grouped into one large section. I believe the article would be much easier to read if sub-sections were added.

Overall, there is vast opportunity for the lead to be improved. The first sentence is clear and concise, and could in itself be the lead. The other paragraphs could be separated into separate major sections for clarity.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation

 * Yes, the content is relevant.
 * The reference cited was written in 1994, so the information is very outdated.
 * No.
 * No, the article does not mention equity gaps, and is not relevant to underrepresented topics.

The article seems to include all necessary information. However, there is room for improvement. More recent information could be added, as the most recent source was retrieved in 2014, and written in 1994.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The article is neutral.
 * There are not any biased claims.
 * No.
 * No, the topic is relatively neutral in nature, so there are not opposing viewpoints.

The article is balanced and there is no evident bias.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation

 * The reference is reliable.
 * No, there is only one reference cited.
 * No, the reference was retrieved in 2014, and written in 1994.
 * No, there is only one source.
 * Yes, the links work.

There is plenty of room for improvement with sources in this article. Several sources could be added, and more recent ones.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation

 * The article is easy to follow, and the language is clear.
 * Besides a few run-on sentences, the article is free of grammatical and spelling errors.
 * No, there are no major sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation

 * Yes, the images included are very helpful in understanding the topic.
 * The captions could be better. One is very long, the other a sentence fragment.
 * Yes
 * No.

The images included in the article help the reader to understand the topic, but are not strategically placed, and the captions could be improved. If the article was broken into sections, it may be easier to place the images. The captions are inconsistent; one is very long and one is very short. Additionally, more images could be beneficial to the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation

 * Most contributors to the talk page post information that could be useful in the article, but do not edit the article themselves. Some have commented on the lacking sources in the article.
 * The article was nominated for deletion in May 2016, but the most recent discussion in the talk page was in September 2015, when users discussed the incomplete sources.

After reading the talk page, it is clear that there are issues with this article. Many other Wikipedians agree that there are not enough sources cited for this article. Furthermore, many suggestions of pertinent information were offered up in the talk page, and never edited onto the InfoTrac page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
This article is poorly developed. While it does clearly communicate the relevant information about its topic, it does not leave behind enough sources to verify the information presented. This is a major problem with the article. Others agree, as is evidenced by the talk page. The article has been nominated for deletion, likely due to its lack of sources and verified facts.

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: