User:Darbyyself/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) WikiProject Television
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because I do enjoy television, and it is normally my preference when it comes to relaxing and leisurely activity. I thought that if I evaluated an article on the standards of producing a television show, I would find it entertaining and amusing as it's something I generally care about.

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 is incredibly brief, as it is only basically one sentence. It is concise and to the point, stating that it's main function is to lay out a structure for other articles on Wikipedia to follow and copy when it comes to publishing about television programs. Underneath the Lead is a table of contents that defines what all the project chooses to cover and discuss.

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
I think that this article is very well represented and laid out. Everything presented in the list of contents seems to somehow related back to the topic of Television, and if it does not necessarily relate to Television, it is still important and relevant information. For example, one of the first topics covered in the article is a list of participants. Though a list of participants does not have anything to do with television, it provides a source and creates a sense of credibility so that readers can be informed about who specifically has worked on the project.

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
The article is rather neutral. The project seems more along the line of a hub for information and sources for more specific content. It provides many links to other articles and references for those that are wanting to go a more specific route. There seems to be no biased or particular position, as I mentioned, it is rather just a hub for linking to other sources and information rather than presenting the information itself.

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
Yes, most all facts presented in the article are backed up by secondary sources of information. As I mentioned earlier most of article and the project is just a presentation of other sources and links that are more specific. So, this means that, yes, the sources are thorough. And the sources do work. I am unsure if they are current or up-to-date, but they do 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
Yes, it is well written. It is not wordy or overwhelming. Instead, it is simple and easy to understand. Because it is well organized it is easy to comprehend the main purpose and flow of the article.

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 article does not include any images or media. The entire project and article is mainly just links and secondary sources for more specific information, so there really is no need for images in order to enhance understanding.

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'm unsure if there are any conversations going on behind the scenes. I am confident that there are most definitely are, as there are many participants working on this project. When there are multiple people working on a particular topic, it is expected that behind the scenes conversations are taking place.

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
The article's strength is that it includes a hefty load of information and sources, which help to increase its probability for credibility. The more information that is provided from different perspectives and points of view, the more something can be considered unbiased and credible. I think that the article could be better developed when it comes to providing facts and relevant information within the project itself, as most of what is included is just links and secondary sources.

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: