User:Burd Up/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: (Xanadu Houses)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This page is about the Xanadu houses which the name sounded fun but this turned out to be a cool page about experimental homes and was built using computers.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the intro gives a good explanation.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, that has to do with the popularity of the building itself.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Its a perfect amount of information for an intro and is not to overwhelming.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, its very descriptive of the building and it includes pictures of the rooms in the building.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The majority of information was added in the 1980s but more recently in 2017.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is nothing about the more current update of the building if there are any problems with the building besides energy consumption.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

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?
 * No, they are mainly from the 1980s and hasn't been touched in two years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, most are from a book though.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is very slim and easy to skim.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Some run on is present.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes its broken down very well and the segments are spaced well with little overlap

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * Just grammatical issues are present.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It was a former feature article on January 3, 2006.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have yet to discuss this in class and I'm not sure we will talk about computer engineered houses.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It was a good read but its very out dated and it would be cool to see what it looks like today.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The imagery is good with the interior pictures, the popularity section was solid, and the entire design section was very strong.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Update it to be more current. It would be interesting to see how the energy consumption has been solved or if any other issues have become apparent.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it is well developed but not complete mainly because it hasn't been updated since 2017 and before that 2008.

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: