User:Chanandrew6/sandbox

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-for-pay Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. First saw a grammatical error. Further examination led to seeing assumptions being made and a lack of female representation.

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 (write out your thoughts here)

- Yes, the article contains the lead sentence "Gay-for-pay describes male or female actors, pornographic stars, or sex workers who identify as heterosexual but who are paid to act or perform as homosexual professionally." - No, the article fails to mention "gogo dancers" in the intro - Yes. The second paragraph in the intro is not really ever expanded upon. - The lead is pretty concise. Not too long.

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 (write out your thoughts here)

- Yes. The content is all related to gay-for-pay - Yes. There are sources as recent as 2018 - Yes. There is little mention of homosexual women vs homosexual men.

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 (write out your thoughts here)

- There are some lines that seem like opinions. Some of these lines are even uncited. - No. - Yes, there are only male viewpoints, no female viewpoints. - No.

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 (write out your thoughts here)

- No, at least one of the sources are questionable. There is a "dubious" mark for citation 6. Additionally, there are multiple lines that are missing citations. - Believe so. - there is a mix of sources spanning from the 90's to the 10's - The links work

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 (write out your thoughts here)

- The article is an easy read - Yes. There are some errors specifically with comma placement. - There could be some fixing with the organization. For example, "Popular Culture" maybe should be renamed to something more reflective of its content, which are films with gay-to-pay actors.

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 (write out your thoughts here)

- there is only one image which is in the intro - the image is captioned - Yes. The image is cited. - 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? 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 (write out your thoughts here)

- There are conversations on on the page regarding sources, generalizations, and exclusions of women. - Start Class rating. It is part of three Wikiprojects - The topic has not been talked about in class.

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 (write out your thoughts here)

- The article needs work. Big misses with the exclusion of women and many lines are uncited. - provides plenty information about pinkface. - Add more information about women, fix the grammar, find sources for all the lines. fix some lines as they seem like opinions. - Definitely not complete. Underdeveloped.

Article Assessment 7/16/20

Lil Nas X's article has a solid lead section that provides some basic information on background, rise to fame and career accomplishments. It is a sufficient opening to the article. The first section is on his early life and education. In that tab is information on his hometown, schooling, and important experiences that play a role in shaping his future. His career is broken down into three parts in chronological order that explain his accomplishments and entry into pop culture with the release of his hit "Old Town Road." The "public recognition" section, however, should probably be removed as the information in that section will fit in either the career section or awards and nominations. The two missing sections recommended by Wikipedia are "Research Contributions" and "Legacy." Lil Nas X is a musician, so I feel that these two sections are irrelevant. There are instances of his contributions scattered throughout the article though, which could probably be reorganized. Overall, this article follows Wikipedia's recommendations for a biography, but there is definitely room for improvement with its organization.