User:Ckeev001/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: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AgeParse
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article to evaluate because it could give a lot of information and looks well structured. Also the article is short and simple which is and advantage.

Lead Guiding questions



 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The Lead does include an introductory sentence that describes the topic accurately.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead has a brief description for the article's major sections.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The lead does not include information not present in the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is definitely concise and short which makes it understandable.

Lead evaluation
The lead is strong, concise and to the point. Overall it is a fair article lead.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes the content in the article is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

The content is relatively up-to-date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is no missing or misplaced context that I can see.

Content evaluation
The content pertains to the article and has nothing about anything else. Content is good.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

The article is neutral there are no opinions.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are no claims that appear heavily biased.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There are a few viewpoints that are underrepresented.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article does not attempt in any way to persuade the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation
The viewpoints could be a little better. Overall the tone and balance is neutral and unbiased.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

No the facts are not backed up with a secondary source.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

There are no sources to reflect on.


 * Are the sources current?

There are no current sources.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The links that I tried seemed to work okay.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources and references are extremely weak and need much more work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article is well written and clear.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

There are sections of the articles for different parts of the article as well as major points.

Organization evaluation
The article is easy to read and is very well done.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The article does not have images relevant to the topic.


 * Are images well-captioned?

There are no images so there are no captions.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

There are no images for copyright to be a problem.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

There are no images in the article.

Images and media evaluation
There are no images in the article so the section of the evaluation is poor.

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 no conversations occurring behind the scenes.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated fair but is not part of any WikiProjects.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

I differs because there has never been a discussion about the topic by our class.

Talk page evaluation
There is nothing to talk about literally there is no talking about the subject at all.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

The overall status of the article is fair.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article's strengths are that is remains unbiased and neutral on the topic.


 * How can the article be improved?

There could be some more improvement in the description in a few of the points in the article. Also there could be some more citations.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is a little underdeveloped in certain parts. But for the most part it is well developed.

Overall evaluation
The article is underdeveloped but has more strengths than weaknesses and has an amazingly accurate information.

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: