User:Carlinnea/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: Outrigger
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article to evaluate because it is a on a term that has definitions in various fields (it is in the wikipedia categories for: Watercraft components, Canoeing and Cayacking, Rowing, and Structural Systems), however it does not have any content related to the application of outriggers to Structural Systems, which is the area I am interested in. I found it when looking at an article about a tall structure that had the word outrigger linked to this page.

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 is very short, it does not contain much information, however it does mention definitions that are not included in the body of the article.

The introductory sentence to this article clearly describes one of the definitions of the topic, the lead paragraph also lists examples of other definitions but it doesn't really state the concept of the topic.

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?

Content evaluation
The content of the article is not extensive, it states how utriggers work for a few types of outriggers and goes into a couple of detailed examples of the uses of outriggers in vessels, however it does not clearly convey the meaning and purpose of outriggers in fishing and rowing contexts. There is content missing in the area of structural systems and wheeled vehicles, these could be additional headings. A general classification of types of outriggers is also missing, it may be appropriate to group outriggers that keep something from tipping over (boats, vehicles, buildings) and have a section describing how they work before going into each type specifically, other groups corresponding to fishing or rowing may also be applicable.

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 appears neutral, the tone is consistent throughout and no intent of persuasion is evident.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The article lacks sources for both historical facts, definitions and descriptions of how outriggers work. The lead, and two of three sections have no references at all. I do not believe the sources that are listed reflect the available literature on the topic.

The references that are included mostly have working links, are current, and seem legitimate.

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 ease with which this article can be read is mostly due to its brevity. A smentioned in the evaluation of the lead and content, the article could benefit from adding general definitions, classifying outriggers and discussing additional types of outriggers that are missing.

No grammatical, spelling or syntax errors distract from the intent of each paragraph.

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 some images of the subjects of the topic, but they aren't the most representative of what they are meant to describe.

The images are not necessarily laid out in a way that links them to the sections where they are discussed, however they aren't arranged in an unappealing way, and they seem to meet Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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 article is rated as Start-Class and belongs to two WikiProjects, both related to boats.

In the discussions, some of the issues that drew my attention when I first read the article are addressed, but no action has been taken on them for quite a few years.

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
Status: Start-Class

The article is strong in recognizing that it is on a term with multiple applications, but a common meaning. It needs work on conveying this message, however.

The article is poorly developed.

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: