User:Cangfeng12/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: Talk:Studio Ghibli (Talk:Studio Ghibli)
 * Since this article is about a Japanese animation film studio I have heard about and I am quite interested in Japanese anime.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * The Lead does not have an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topics of the article - it just starts to introduce what Studio Ghibli is and its general history.
 * The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections - it just starts to introduce what Studio Ghibli is and its general history.
 * Yes, the Lead introduces the status of Studio Ghibli in Japan and worldwide.
 * The Lead is concise and overly detailed.

==== Lead evaluation: The lead overall is really concise and overly detailed by generally introduces what Studio Ghibli is, its status in Japan and worldwide, and its brief history. The overview at the start of the article is clear and easy to understand. I think this is a really nice Lead. ====

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? - Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I don't find any missing part or content that does not belong.
 * I don't think the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, neither it addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

==== Content evaluation: Overall, the article covers many aspects relevant to the topic with up-to-date information, such as history, distribution right, and works of Studio Ghibli. The contents gives more weight to important viewpoints and less weight to fringe ideas. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? - Yes, the article is neutral with no opinions or suggestions are introduced.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position - there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No, the article does not attempt persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

==== Tone and balance evaluation: Overall, the article is written without bias toward a particular point of view, does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, and represents all the different viewpoints that reliable sources have expressed about the topic. ====

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? - Yes
 * The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors, they do not include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes

==== Sources and references evaluation: Reliable sources are cited throughout the article and as much as possible to back up the facts introduced in the article. The sources are current and the links work. ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - Yes, the article is concise, clear, and easy to read overall.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? - I did not identify any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - Yes, it is well-organized, with small sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - The article does include a few images but not much.
 * Are images well-captioned? - The images 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 only includes three images to introduce the three of the four founders of Studio Ghibli. The images are well-captioned and 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? - The talk discusses conversations about small changes that can make a cleaner look or some minor changes such as digit pronunciation and adding more information for co-productions.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - C-class and is a port of some WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? - Wikipedia tends to list more fact with no preference or suggestions yet we tend to incorporate our own ideas and opinions when we discussed in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? - Since the article is rated as C-class and is related to several WikiProjects, the overall status should be good.
 * What are the article's strengths? - The article really introduces the several aspects about Studio Ghibli with rich information with a neutral tone.
 * How can the article be improved? - I think the article can incites some more images since the article is heavily words based now.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - I think the article is well-developed.

==== Overall evaluation: Overall, the article is clear and easy to understand. There are several headings and subheadings arranged chronologically, with few images when appropriate. The article covers many aspects of the topic, giving more weight to important viewpoints and less weight to fringe ideas. The article is written without bias toward a particular point of view. In addition, reliable sources are cited throughout the article and as much as possible. Thus I think this article is a well-developed article. ====

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: