User:Carla R2D2/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)   The Entertainer
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:   I have chosen this article because I was looking for something funny and interesting at the same time.  But couldn't think of anything, until I hear my dad play the piano with this theme song.  Then I knew:  "this is the one".

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?                                                                                                                                     It does gives an introductory about the article, however, it doesn't  describe it concisely and clearly. 
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?      The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections. 
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?                                                                                                                                                                            Yes, some like:  "A Breeze from Alabama",  giving artists like Rifkin the opportunity, explanation of  ragtime and more. 
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?    I consider it too concise. 

Lead evaluation
Thanks to the guiding questions I saw and understand that the lead is very week. It doesn't have a clear introduction and it doesn't give it justice to the type of music that is The Entertainer. One that is jumpy, funny and cheerful. It lacks of important information for the readers or users who doesn't know about the music field. I also consider it is not deep at all, the end leads to nothing.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?     It is a very long introduction but it doesn't has a topic. 
 * Is the content up-to-date?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               All the external links it shows and the article itself has been edited in the actual year (1 or 2 months ago edited).  However, the links to other articles says that it is not reliable and need more work. 
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?     There is content that is missing, yes. (Important information) 
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
About the content of the article I also realized that it doesn't have a central topic. It talks about everything and nothing at the same time. It also doesn't has reliable sources. Even though it has a lot of external links, citations, references, some of these asks for better editing.

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?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?   NO 

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance guiding questions helped me again to see something else. This part of the article I must say, is very well done. It is neutral, it doesn't persuade the readers and it really seems as an article. It maintains a professional and concentrated view in what is important, everything related to The Entertainer.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?                                                                                                                                                     All the article is full of secondary source of information (or at least a huge part of it).  But again, it is not reliable.  A lot are sources or links to other articles from Wikipedia and in the Talk Page it almost begs to edit and correct the information. 
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?    The sources have been edited about 1-2 months ago.  So it is kind of current .
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?                                                                              Some sources doesn't even have people in the Talk Page (meaning it hasn't been reviewed). 
 * Check a few links. Do they work?        I checked almost all of the and they all work. 

Sources and references evaluation
I think the sources and references are very poor. Cause as I explained, it does has a lot of links, sources and references, but most of them are not reliable or need to be more elaborated, even if they all work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?                                                                                                                                                                                  The first part (the long introduction) is not concise or clear about the central point of the article.  But later on, when the table of contents start, it is concise, clear and easy to read. 
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?    No, it doesn't 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?                                                                                                                                              I like the organization and I think is clear.  However the last part of the ice cream, I would created another section about it and talk more about it.  It would've been nice to know more about what happened to the rag after all those hits. 

Organization evaluation
In organization I think it was average. Because of its introduction I don't think it was the best. However, it has no grammatical or spelling errors and in an overview, the organization was not bad. I just consider that the last part of the ice cream would've been nice to make another point in the table of contents. So the end will be matched with the theme music. (Ice cream is tasty and sweet, such as The Entertainer) Maybe a story about someone who knew about the Ice Cream trucks driving into neighbors with the song: The Entertainer, giving us a happy ending about the track of the music.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?                                                                                                                                                                                  I think it needs a lot more of images.  Like, piano, Scott Joplin himself, a photo of the Billboards, The Sting (one of the most popular movies), etc... 
 * Are images well-captioned?  There is just one image, so yes, it is well-captioned. 
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?  Maybe the image could be closer, it is just to give an idea. 

Images and media evaluation
I think it needs more images but the one that the article has is well-captioned. Maybe some readers or users want it to be more closer to read what it says inside. But I don't think it is much needed, the image is there to give us an idea and center focus on what the theme is.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?                                                                                                                                    In the talk page there are several conversations about the topic.  Some saying the music files are invalid, others saying the song is difficult to play (it is not), others want more history about the piece, lyrics, etc. 
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?   It is a level5-vital article and is rated as Unassessed-Class. 
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
In this article the Take page is very active. A lot of users are giving ideas and contributing to make the article better. In the other hand, the rate is very low. I get some things could use some work, but Unassessed is a very low low low level. And I think it shouldn't because it has some other good things to work with.

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 overall status is that it for sure needs more work, more information, more reliable sources, images, sounds, better organization and history. It is underdeveloped for me, but it has strengths that I consider are important to mention. The Tone and Balance was brilliant, always concentrated in the topic, it has a lot of references, the organization is good, the sound/music of The Entertainer is included and that is magnificent (I've hear it over and over) and the Talk Page is very active. Which means a lot of users are giving their best to make it work.

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: