User:Annan sun/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: Big Brother 15 (American season)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it is a C-Class article (as the WikiEdu page suggested I find) that I have some knowledge about. I believe it relates to the course because Big Brother is not only a relevant reality TV but because the whole concept of show relates to the way we as a society view surveillance.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * The lead does not discuss the further sections in the article, other than the format. It briefly mentions some of the house guests, but mostly discusses the format.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly detailed. The lead includes a description of the show format that is largely unnecessary since there is already a full section about the format in the article.

Lead evaluation
The lead could definitely use some work because it is bogged down so much by the description of the format. The rest of the information in the lead is accurate and describes the season well but there is too much extra information involved.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. All of the content is in some way about the season.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date. The article has also been updated to include recent projects and reality show appearances of cast members from the show.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is an entire section under "controversy" about alleged rigging by production that has no citations involved. This section does not belong within the article. In addition, many of the episodes are missing numbers for "Households (rating/share)"

Content evaluation
While the content is all relevant and up to date, there is some content involved that simply just does not belong because of the lack of citations for it. There is also some missing information within the article, but overall most of the content is factually accurate and relevant.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Most of the article is neutral, except for the "alleged rigging by production" section.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * "Alleged Rigging by Production" section seems to be heavily biased against the way that Elissa Slater played the game.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes. See above.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Only in that one section.

Tone and balance evaluation
Most of the article is neutral and factual, including a good portion of the "controversy" section, but the entire section about Production Rigging is completely biased. It greatly diminishes the quality of the article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most facts in the article are backed up and are factually accurate, but the sources are often blogs and less credible website. Some of that has to do with the nature of the show but in general they are not the most credible sources, even though they are accurate for this topic.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources, as stated before, are a lot of blogs with articles published week to week about the show's happenings. They reflect the general ways to find out more about the show.
 * Are the sources current?
 * A lot of the sources utilize wayback machine to work, so they are not current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links do work, but they link to the wayback machine sometimes.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are not the best, as many of them are not current, and many are not from the most factual of sites, but there are not many "academic" sources for this topic. In addition, the section about the Houseguests mentions pulling everything from the CBS website, but does not actually cite it as a source.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is easy to read and clear and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no spelling errors that I noticed.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well organized except for the summary and episodes. The individual episodes are missing summaries in them and instead there is a large and clunky series of paragraphs that does not read as well as episode description/summaries would.

Organization evaluation
The article, besides the summary-episode part is well organized. Putting the summary section into the episode would make the article much more organized and easier to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is only one image in the entire article and it is within the infobox.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No. There is only one image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Images and media evaluation
Since there is only one image in the article, I think the article could use a few more images, specifically of the house in the section describing the house, and of some of the Houseguests, particularly Andy Herren, the winner of the season.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is quite a bit of discussion (mostly past discussion) going on in the talk page. Some discussions talk about how to handle the "MVP" status (a concept that was new for season 15), others are about how to accurately and fairly write about the controversy surrounding season 15. There are also discussions about including alliances within the page or removing the or if that would make the article too convoluted. In addition to that, there are old conversations about whether or not to update the tables and information as it happens on the Live Feeds, or to wait until the television episodes. There are also a few talk page comments requesting that people stop vandalizing the page in regards to Aaryn and Amanda.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This is a C-class article which is a part of WikiProject Big Brother.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * n/a

Talk page evaluation
The talk page for this article has not been very active since the season ended, but during the season there were multiple conversations going on about how to best represent the controversies on the show and how to organize the page itself. There were very clearly multiple editors who were dedicated to making sure that this page is the best that it can be during the season. The page is not perfect, but at the time it did have multiple people discussing it and trying to make the article accurate.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-Class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is very good at providing an overview of Big Brother Season 15. It gives lots of details into the week-to-week happenings on the show including HOHs, Veto wins and votes to evict. It also has valuable information about the ratings of the season and addresses some of the
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could be improved by fixing up some of the citations, inserting the summary section into the episode table as descriptions, and removing (or at least finding legitimate citations for) the alleged production rigging section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well-developed, but could use some edits to clean it up, make it more accurate, and a more accurate page.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article has a lot of valuable information, but falls short due to a few major issues. There has clearly been a lot of work and effort put into the article, but some clean up work, some searching for better sources, and perhaps a few images should be in order for the article.

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: