User:Cat1729/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: Rumpelstiltskin
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I like fairy tales and after following that link I found this one. I enjoy the store of Rumpelstiltskin.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it is very concise, even leads out some potentially needed details.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes as of last month
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think it all belongs, not sure if there should be things added. it seems well rounded
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * no

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes it brings in no opinions
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * there is really no position to take on a fairy tale
 * 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 but it is a fairy tale from years ago
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * the sources are diverse
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * all of them work

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

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?
 * I think so
 * 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?
 * There are a lot of really good conversation in the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * no it is not a part of any WikiProjects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I just followed the link on wiki page to show me a list of articles, it didnt specify to find one relating to class so I didnt.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I dont understand
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is well laid out there is no question on what the sections will be talking about
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The translations sections seems very chaotic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say it is well-developed, it may not be all the way complete but it is well 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: