User:Cyprian72/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) Lowell Power Canal System and Pawtucket Gatehouse
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article is about the Lowell Power Canal System, relevant to the history of our city as this was the origins of the city's industrialization.

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
- Yes, the lead has an introductory sentence that is concise and doesn't not provide irrelevant information

-Yes the article has a contents legend

- No all information presented in the intro is later expanded upon.

- No the lead is not overly detailed it only has information relevant to the subject matter.

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
- Yes the articles content is relevant to the topic it only has information about the workings and the history of the canals.

- Yes the content is up to date it was last edited 2018 and I have found no major changes to the canals since then

-No the article is complete in it's history of the canals if anything more could be said about the inventor's/maintainers but that's for another article

-No it does not

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
- Yes the article is neutral it lists only facts

- No there are no opinions or claims that seem biased

- No the purpose of this article is to inform

-No it does not

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
- 3 out of 4 of the references was old and no longer available but the remaining one is trustworthy, a government agency

- Yes the source is thorough it is a government database of historic places

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 for the most part well written, there could be a clearer divide between history and founder/inventor information as everything is thrown together but it is not a big deal due to the articles short nature

- I could not find any grammatical or spelling errors

- It is organized alright it has well organized sections of dates and information but the main article is sort of a blob with few paragraphs that don't seem to have any progression or order

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
- Yes the article includes images but I think a better picture of the canals actually at work would be better for example the inner machinery

- Yes they are all well captioned

- Yes they adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations

- In my personal opinion, no

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

 * - None are going on besides someone fixing the not working reference links
 * -This article is supported by Wiki Project Massachusetts Lowell
 * - Wikipedia did not go as in depth as we did on certain aspects and it was more of a summary than a article you cite

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
- It has been marked as mid importance by Wiki Project Massachusetts and high importance by Wiki Project Massachusetts Lowell

- the article has accurate information with a clear introduction and nice pictures with captions that aren't super enhancing but they add to the article

- The article could be improved with more beind the scene pictures of canals, a more organized paragraph structure, more background info on the people who worked on and maintained the canals and information on the canals now and the city's plans for the future

- I would give the article a strong 6.9/10. It is good but not worth a 7. 7 and up for me is already a well developed article and can only go higher by going above and beyond.

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: