User:Elenamvenegoni/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) Urban decay
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen to evaluate this article as I think it pertains to the subject of Urban Economics.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The sentence is not exactly concise but it clearly demonstrates what the subject is and offers links to similar ideas.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not really, mostly brings up themes that will be further dissected in the rest of the article, but it is not repetitive.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It could be considered overly detailed, but I think in this instance it works as it offers links into other concepts that might be what the reader is actually looking for

Lead evaluation
Overall Id say it's a good lead

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? only one source is more recent than 2015 so it could definitely use more up to date statistics and data.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? not really.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes, I think urban decay is applicable to underrepresented populations.

Content evaluation
content could be updated, but it's not bad

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? yes, except for the rent control section which could be more neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? the rent control section gives far more evidence to it being successful than outlining both perspectives.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no big, long overrepresented sections though
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? not really

Tone and balance evaluation
could do better in that one section, but everything else is good

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Almost all (except maybe one or two)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? not current enough, in my opinion.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
good, if updated.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
organized well in my opinion

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?

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 to represent it in a way that doesn't marginalize anyone
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? yes, it has a B rating
 * 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? I think decent, not great
 * What are the article's strengths? it is well sourced and is linked to many other relating topics
 * How can the article be improved? newer sources and date, full neutrality, and more fleshed out
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? it could be better 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: