User:Crazy326459/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: Encyclopedia
 * This was chosen to fulfill a class assignment

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 was well organized with a clear/concise introduction sentence. The reader was able to gain a quick understanding of what the article was going to be about from the first few sentences. There are some brief descriptions of the article's main section, like the history, that are included in the lead; however, not every section is mentioned. All the information that was in the lead could also be found in the main body of the article. Overall, the lead was fairly 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
All the content in the article is relevant to the main topic. To the best of my knowledge, all the information present in the article is up-to-date. I don't believe there is any missing information or information that does not belong. I think that the Etymology section could be developed in further detail, but in general, the content is all there. This article does not have a equity gap because most of the information found in this article can be corroborated with other sources.

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
I think that the article for the most part has a neutral view. However, I think that the viewpoint on how encyclopedia's are written by professional and/or experts in the field is somewhat over represented. On the flip side, Wikipedia is underrepresented in that it is portrayed as not being written as the same caliber.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are quite a few links in the article that relate to other reliable secondary sources. The hyperlinks connect to the words or ideas that could use further clarification, like the the word etymology. Of the links that I tried, they all seemed to work well and were relatively current. I was unable to figure out if the authors of the hyperlinked articles were from a diverse spectrum.

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
I thought that this article was well-written. For the most part, the information was clear and easy to follow. There were a few paragraphs in the body of the article that got a little too wordy, but overall I thought that it was fine. There were clear sections that related to the overall topic.

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 images that were included in the article enhanced the overall understanding of the topic. They were able to give a visual context to what the article was talking about. The images were well-captioned and connected to the image to the article.

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
I believe that this article was C-rated as well as part of several WikiProjects. Most of the conversations that I saw in the talk section were editorial or clarification comments. For example, I saw one comment that informed the editors that a definition did not match the citation that was used.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths? It provides a well rounded summary of the topic.
 * How can the article be improved? In certain areas, the writing could be more concise.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think that it is definitely a well-developed article.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I thought that this was a really good article; however, it is still in the developing stages. It is not yet a top rated article, but it has the potential to get there. Most of the improvements that could be made to this article are clarification edits.

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: