User:Annetteod/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) Upright Citizens Brigade
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I really enjoy this comedy troupe and have read things about them as well as seen their shows both in person and online.

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
The lead includes an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic but it does not describe the sections the article will go into. It has some information that is not really relevant to being in the lead of the article, such as some of it's early members and the improvisation manual. It is short but it has unnecessary information instead of being a summary.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic but the content is not up to date. The notable alumni only includes a very small portion of the alumni, as there could be a more elaborate list instead of vaguely saying Saturday Night Live hires often from improv, there should be the specific examples. There is also more that can be in history section.

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. Nothing appears biased. There are not any negative viewpoints about the Upright Citizens Brigade even though criticism exists. The article does not offer any persuasion.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links do work and the facts are backed up by secondary source of information. The sources are current and they reflect mostly articles in news journals or the theatre's website.

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
It is well organized without any mistakes. There just is not a lot of information to begin with, but the sections are concise.

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
There is only one image an it enhances understanding. There are many opportunities for more images. The images do adhere to copyright regulations. The one image is appealing.

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
There are discussions over the accuracy of some of the information regarding original members that has been changed since then. Other people are wondering about more topics that aren't included at all in the article, including the lack of negative press towards the group or the addressing of any failures of the troupe. The talk section also discusses the use of references that are not clarified, and the lack of representation of the LA branch of the UCB, as the article mostly focuses on the NYC branch. The rating is a "start" rating, meaning there is still a lot of improvements to be made. It is a part of the Wikipedia Comedy project.

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
The article's overall status I would describe as not close to completion. The strengths are in the articles accuracy, but there is a large lack of information and there is no logical flow through the sections. The article can be improved by finding more information, adding more sections, and completing the alumni section with a full chart of the alumni of the organization and their achievements.

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: