User:Busk12/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: The Chrysanthemum and the Sword
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it is something we discussed in class that I'd like to know more about. Reading the article will give me a chance to learn more about it, but more importantly, it will give me a chance to be more critical of the information I'm receiving.

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?

Lead evaluation

 * The Lead includes a clear and concise introduction to the article's topic.
 * The Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * The Lead includes a quotation that is not used in the rest of the article, but everything else is once again mentioned.
 * The Lead is fairly concise, but the quote from the book doesn't fit well in context.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

 * This article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * The content is fairly up to date, but does need some updating in certain parts.
 * The main gap in the content of this article is concerning content of the book itself, as it mainly focuses on receptions of it. There isn't out of place content.
 * This article doesn't directly deal with an equity gap.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The article's tone is neutral.
 * There aren't claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Underrepresented viewpoints are other American and Chinese scholars, though the latter is definitely more underrepresented than the former.
 * The article is not trying to persuade the reader into one position.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * The second paragraph in the "Research circumstances" doesn't seem to have a citation to back up its claim. The following section, "Reception in the United States," still needs citation.
 * There are various sources used throughout the article to reflect on the topic, but there are still some resources like "Queries on the Scientific Value of The Chrysanthemum and the Sword" that are not used.
 * Some of the resources beyond the book itself are fairly old, so there are more recent sources available on the subject.
 * The sources aren't especially diverse, but the article does include Western, Japanese, and Chinese perspectives on the topic. However, the coverage on their perspectives is not equal.
 * The links work fine.

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?

Organization evaluation

 * The article is fairly written, but sometimes the organization of information is unclear.
 * The article doesn't have grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The article's main structure is not very well organized, though it's also not incomprehensibly organized. The main issue is with the innacurate titling of the sections, such as "Later reception and criticism" actually concerning Japanese reception and criticism, and not actually contrasting any time period.

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?

Images and media evaluation

 * The article includes an image of the book's cover which enhances the understanding of the topic
 * The images are well-captioned
 * The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * The images are laid out in a visually appealing way

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?

Talk page evaluation

 * The main conversation about representing this topic is asking for more content on the book itself rather than the reception of it.
 * This article is rated as a Star-Class; it is also rated as a level-5 vital article (least importance). It is part of the Anthropology, Japan / Culture, and Books WikiProjects.
 * The way Wikipedia discusses this topic differs from the way we've talked about it in class because it's less strongly leaning towards this book having biased and prejudiced context. However, it certainly doesn't deny that it may have bias in it. It also focuses less on the content of the book and what it was trying to say about Japanese people.

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?

Overall evaluation

 * The article overall is in need of development and updating.
 * The article's strength is that it contains information on receptions of the book, although this is not entirely up to date.
 * The article needs to add specific information about the book itself.
 * This article is underdeveloped.