User:Cbogart1/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.


 * Tokyo Skytree: Tokyo Skytree
 * It was the first structure that came to mind. I also figured I could learn something.

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 begins with a brief description of Tokyo Skytree. The Lead includes brief descriptions of some sections, such as the "Naming and height" and "Broadcasting use" sections, but doesn't really have a lead up to the "Design" section.
 * The Lead contains a little information that is not present in the article itself, mostly geographical location. This information really doesn't have a good place in the article aside from the map found on the right. The Lead also contains information about Tokyo Tower no longer being a suitable broadcast tower that is mentioned nowhere else. Otherwise, the Lead is concise.

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 majority of the content of the article is relevant to the topic. The only part not related (or not explicitly stated as relevant) is the aforementioned reference to Tokyo Tower in the Lead. To the best of my knowledge, the article's information is relevant and not missing anything.

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 tone of the article appears to be neutral with no present biases. There appears to be no persuasion nor over or underrepresented viewpoints.

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
Most of the facts in the article are backed by reliable sources, but a couple of the points in the "Timeline" section are under or improperly represented. Moreover, some of the sources are dead links such as source [22]. There also appear to be no sources for the "Broadcasting use" section at all. The sources also do not appear to represent anything after 2014.

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 well-organized with information being located in the appropriate sections. The article also is mostly easy to read and concise. For the most part the article has no grammatical or spelling errors. The only glaring exception to these is the description under "Timeline" for 31 May 2013.

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 images which are well-captioned. To the best of my knowledge, the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are also presented in a visually appealing manner on the page.

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 majority of talks on the page are minor changes to the article. A couple of users had questions about the Tower but they went unanswered. For the most part, discussion has been nonexistent since 2015. The article is rated Start or C-class of Low to Mid-importance and is part of 6 WikiProjects including architecture, television, and civil engineering. We've yet to discuss this topic, or any particularly similar to it, in class; however, the article has a clear focus on the construction history and the public reception with little discussion about the architectural design or significance.

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 good. The article could be best improved by cleaning up some of the dead links by finding other suitable source of information or finding the web archives for the given sources. The article is otherwise complete, provided the Tower hasn't had any relevant history since 2014.

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: