User:CoreyLentz/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: (link) Bush flying https://www.alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/activities/flying
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Bush flying is relevant to Alaska where I am from, and took a small role in the life of Mrs. Hunter.

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? Yes, under the contents tab.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is more concise and to the point, it is not overly detailed or bogged down with information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the current information used in the article is still being put into practical use today.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The topic generally doesn't have anything to do with underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article strictly sticks to facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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? The facts are on planes mostly there utilities and weight plus distance travelled
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The article cannot be biased becaused it is simply stating facts about aircraft.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, everything is labelled and to the point.
 * 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, it is organized into different sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it includes pictures or diagrams of the aircraft.
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
 * 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? We haven't had an opportunity yet to discuss a group as we all cant get on the same page unfortunately.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? no
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article isnt exactly a peer reviewed article but does state facts pertaining to aircraft models.
 * What are the article's strengths? it has a plethora of facts on various aircraft used in bush flying
 * How can the article be improved? by providing more years or number of aircraft still in use today.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? i would say that the article leans more towards 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: