User:Aweirdanomaly/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: Isaac Asimov
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I've read some of his stories, and I thought they were fairly fantastic while maintaining realism (most of the time). I also briefly remembered that he taught classes in Boston University and figured he'd be a nice guy to read more upon.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence details that this article is about the person named Asimov and briefly mentions what he did and was mostly known for.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really. It mostly goes into detail about his short stories and the praise they received as well as how they made him famous. It does not mention much about his life or education.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. All the information talked about in the Lead is further explored in detail by the article with maybe the exception of a few things such as the "asteroid (5020) Asimov" which due to being in the awards section, it's only talked about for one brief line. However, there is a link to an external page with more details about it.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It could be shorter and talk about more topics other than Asimov's writings such as his stance in social issues or his start on writing, but it's an overall pretty good lead.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yep.
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes, the last update was on February 3 of this year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? That is difficult to answer since this is about an entire person's life, so only the most noteworthy things are included. Hence, what someone may consider noteworthy may not have been included on this list. However, a lot of noteworthy things about Asimov are discussed here, so it seems like not much is missing. There also isn't any irrelevant information.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, even through the politics and sexual allegations portions of the article only facts are stated.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There doesn't seem to be any.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Perhaps his progressive and liberal stance on politics is a little over-represented to agree with what is seen as common today. For example, his stance on feminism, LGBT rights, and how he considered Nixon "a crook and a liar" even before the Watergate scandal seem like ideas really ahead of their time when you consider what time period he was from.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article portrays Asimov as a noble man ahead of his time and does not point at any flaws in his character besides the sexual misconduct allegations which are talked about briefly, so perhaps the article tries to portray Asimov in the cleanest light possible to persuade the reader that he was an exemplary man. However, as much as I also want to believe that Asimov was a great man, he surely had some flaws that are not talked about in this article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of them are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Definitely, the notes and sources section is pretty extensive as well.
 * Are the sources current? They range from the early 70's to 2017, so yeah, I'd say they're current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yep.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yep\s.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not from what I can see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the picture of Asimov on the top right, for example, is really helpful.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, they're described concisely and effectively.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The image described 2 questions ago does not list a source, but everything else is fine.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Adding things like his coinage of the word "Spome," his stance in pseudonyms, and the extent of him being "handsy" are discussed.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? "Isaac Asimov has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. This article has been rated as B-Class."
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't talked about it in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?Pretty good. As stated above, it ranks as a B.
 * What are the article's strengths? It talks extensively on Asimov's writing career.
 * How can the article be improved? It could talk more about Asimov's personal life.
 * 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.

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: