User:Bakeshutwait/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: Thomas & Friends
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have loved this show since I was a little kid.

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?
 * It explains what the show is in good detail.
 * There is a table of contents that lists the subtopics.
 * It does not mention in a subtopic about the title change to "Thomas & Friends: Big World! Big Adventures!"
 * It has a healthy amount of detail, but does not go into a little too much detail.

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?


 * 5. Yes, it most certainly is, but goes into too much detail.
 * 6. It has a good amount of information and is outdated a tad, but not too much.
 * 7. There are several unlisted dubs in which the series is dubbed that are not listed, including the dub in Japan, in which Thomas 7 Friends is very popular.

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?
 * 8. There is very much neutralism.
 * 9. No there are not.
 * 10. There is that the show is popular, which is true.
 * 11. If parents read the "Critical response" section, they might want to show it to their kids if they haven't already.

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?
 * 12. Not all of them are, although Andrew Brenner and Davey Moore (two people who have written for the series) have said how useful the Thomas The Tank Engine Wiki is.
 * 13. I would say that this article does reflect the wiki page, but only so much.
 * 14. The wiki keeps up to date as many people do a fantastic job of updating it. However, most of the citations are outdated.
 * 15. Some of them do work indeed.

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?

16. It is easy to understand as long as one has a broad vocabulary.

17. Yes, there are, but they are minimal.

18. It is broken down pretty sufficiently.

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?


 * 19. The image is only the logo of the show, so it may depend on the person.
 * 20. Sort of, but it is in a fragment.
 * 21. Yes because it is a public domain.
 * 22. I would say it is laid out in the way it is supposed to be.

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?


 * 23. I will say that they are very biased and disorganized.
 * 24. Several C-Class WikiProjects; one of top-importance, one high, two mid, and one low.
 * Top: WikiProject Thomas
 * High: WikiProject Television, British Television, WikiProject Trains
 * Mid: WikiProject Animation, Computer
 * Low: WikiProject The Beatles
 * 25. It is a very disorganized and biased talk 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?
 * 26. It is a very good article with plentiful information, although television is not the most relevant topic in the world.
 * 27. It is very detailed and informative.
 * 28. It could use a grammar check, an info check and a spell check.
 * 29. It is pretty well-developed, but could use one to four peole to take time to dust it off.

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: