User:AstariaP/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1( not chosen, not enough sources.)

 * The world in winter
 * not a lot of info, no sources really, no talk page.
 * Needs work on:
 * -plot, too short
 * -sources, there weren't many I could find
 * -critical reveiws
 * -publications
 * -other
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 2( not chosen, not enough sources)

 * City of a Thousand Suns
 * also not a lot of info really some sources. not talk page
 * Areas that need work:
 * -Plot, very straightforward probably from the back of the book.
 * -sources, not many here either
 * -crticial reveiws
 * -publications
 * -Other
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 3( not chosen, too big and too much to work with)

 * 28 Days Later
 * decent page, has all the right sections. plot summary is a little long. lots going on in the talk page.
 * Most needed area of work:
 * -plot summary needs to be shortened.
 * - sources better organized.
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 4(not chosen, Also too big and too much to work with)

 * The 100
 * strangely organized and almost too much going on. has story not plot? "story" section is far longer than it needs to be. Includes lots of ratings demographics
 * Needs work:
 * -Plot, messy, too much info, covers all seasons not general arc of show.
 * -Demographics
 * -better sources?
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5 ( I chose this one)
Evaluate an article
 * Sweet Tooth

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? : somewhat, this series is fairly new so the page is a bit sparse.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? : yes, but there isn't a lot since the article is small
 * 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? Pretty 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, it is relevant
 * Is the content up-to-date? content is mostly up to date considering nothing more has been made of the series yet.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Seems like there could be more sections related that could be added, but nothing missing that is listed
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It could address it more since there is content within the show related to that. But it doesn't address it enough

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

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? No not all
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Mostly yes
 * Are the sources current? All sources are pretty current since its a new series.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * 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.) I believe there are a few peer reviewed articles that weren't included
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

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? Well written but short
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Doest seem to have any grammatical errors
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Pretty well organized but could use more bulk

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not really, there's only the one profile image
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no not really because there aren't really any.

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? Not a whole lot going on, on the talk page
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated C, some comic related wiki projects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It just could use more bulk and a little more sources that are peer reveiwed. I can't say it differs much from what we talked about in class.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Mostly complete but still needs work (C)
 * What are the article's strengths? Its conciseness
 * How can the article be improved? More sources, bulkier sections
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Fairly competent but did use a lot of resources that were opinion pieces or things like screen rant etc..

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Initial summary evaluation of sweet tooth:
 * decent page, but could use more of the basic sections. Plot section is called premise. Lacking in some other categories. Talk page doesn't have much going on. Resources seem to have a lot going on.
 * Basic parts that need to most work:
 * -plot
 * -sources
 * -production
 * - a section where its talked about that this is based on a book, and the other media types that have been made (comics etc)
 * Sources:
 * Sources:
 * Sources: