User:Bousqi/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) Leonard Matlovich
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I did a project on this man in High School, and I remember finding the Wikipedia article lacking.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The first sentence is truthful and tells important introductory information, but doesn't mention what Matlovich is primarily known for.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead is a generally good summary of what Matlovich has done throughout his life in terms of LGBT activism.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There's a slight detail here and there that's not mentioned in the article, but for the most part information in the Lead is also present in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? For the most part, the article gets to the point of Matlovich's life, but there are plenty of minor details that aren't exactly necessary in the lead.

Lead evaluation
Overall the Lead is objective and does well at getting to the point of Matlovich's life of activism, but might be a tad overcrowded with details.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I wish there was more detail about how the court case effected the gay rights movement as a whole.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article absolutely is related to the LGBT community, a historically underrepresented group.

Content evaluation
The content is very good, and extremely objective, but it might be lacking in just a few areas.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article doesn't tell the reader how to feel at any point throughout the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There's not much about the perspective of people at the time who were against gays in the military.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is very objective, and perfect for Wikipedia. It doesn't lean heavily to one side, despite the content of the article being relatively controversial.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are mostly historical, but when the sources need to be current they are.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall the sources seem historically accurate, one of the sources lead the to a 404 error, but other than that the sources seem to be accurate and correct.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, with a few exceptions.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
The article is very well organized and allows the reader to find whatever they may be looking for.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, but there could be some better photographs, especially in regards to the court case
 * Are images well-captioned? When there are images, they are well captioned.
 * 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
The article needs more picture, the only two pictures are the Time Magazine cover and his grave, but the pictures are relevant and and well captioned.

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's not a lot of discussion, mostly just talking about citations and things like that.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is part of the following projects, LGBT studies/person(Start Class), Biography/Military(Start Class), Military history(C-Class)
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We've talked about LGBT issues in class, but this is more about the history, where we focus on the cultural aspects.

Talk page evaluation
There's very little discussion on the article, but I'm not sure that the article really needs all that much discussion considering that the content of the article is so good.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article isn't very well known, and it isn't edited very often.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is very objective and does a very good job at presenting clear facts.
 * How can the article be improved? The article needs more detail about how the court case effected American culture, and more about Matlovich's activism after the court case.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article isn't awful but it could certainly use some more development.

Overall evaluation
The article is informative, well organized, but might be slightly lacking in a few areas.

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: