User:Elijah.fisher/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: The Endless River
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because I figured I should do something that interests me of which I also have a decent understanding.

Lead

 * Lead evaluation
 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence quickly clarifies what The Endless River is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead does cover the major sections, though there is some extraneous info presented, such as information about the album artwork.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all that is listed in the Lead is presented at least once elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Though this Lead does not address all of the contents of the article and includes some unnecessary information for an introduction, it is nonetheless an apt overview of the subject.

Content

 * Content evaluation
 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is in-line with the topic; it is all either describing the album, how it performed, or how it came to be. Nothing is off-topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the article was updated multiple times this August, and the album is less than six years old.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As far as I am concerned, no, though there is minimal unnecessary content. I do not have any questions left about the topic that would be pertinent to wikipedia. For instance, I may want to know more about Nick Mason's personal opinions regarding the album, but this is not wikipedia's job. Further, I do not spot any extraneous content that works toward a detriment to the topic or goes against what wikipedia stands for.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not really, but I do not see how this is applicable seeing as this is an article about an album...

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, I cannot sense any sources of bias upon reading through the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? As aforementioned, no. While a few possibly biased quotes are listed from the personnel, there seems to be none from the wikipedia editors. Only facts are emphasized.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not viewpoints, no, but some sections contain more content than others (such as the "Personnel" section being longer than the "The Later Years reissue," but this is because the personnel is more extensive than a single reissue and hence there is more information to present.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No; as stated, there seems to be no biases or ulterior motives.

Sources and References

 * Sources and references evaluation
 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Though I do not have the time to view all 161 citations, those that I can see and that I did view seem to be properly cited with a relatively reliable source. Some are reviews of the album, which are not factual, but these are used to present the reception of the album, so it works.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, 161 different sources are listed for a single album from 2014, so I would certainly call that thorough.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are relatively current, considering the album is only six years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I do not have the time to check into this too deeply, but it seems to be rather irrelevant. As long as many different, diverse sources reported on the album, what does whether many of these authors are marginalized matter? Further, according to the training, fringe/less prevalent views should not have as much weight as their counterparts.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most of them do. I found one that did not, but there was an archive for it, so I was able to view it nonetheless.

Organization

 * Organization evaluation
 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article presents the facts and quotations at a basic level so that the vast majority of people who read english can understand it.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not catch any, though I am a big proponent of the Oxford comma, which is a stylistic choice.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the sections cover all that a person would want to know about a generic album, plus a few sections specific to this particular album.

Images and Media

 * Images and media evaluation
 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Some of the images seem to be extraneous. I do not believe that pictures of the individuals who were on the album are necessary for the recording section, for example, but I do not think that they take away from the article/section/experience.
 * Are images well-captioned? The captions thoroughly explain the context of the pictures.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? As far as I can tell, yes. They all include the proper permission details.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. Regardless of whether they are necessary, they look nice.

Checking the talk page

 * Talk page evaluation
 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are two conversations currently: one is a disagreement/confusion about the designation of the song names in the track listing section, the other is dealing with missing citations and relevancy in the artwork section.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated C-class. It is a part of the Pink Floyd, Rock Music, Progressive Rock, and Albums WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Unfortunately, I did not choose a topic that we have discussed in class, though it is much more informed than I have been in discussing this album (as I would have expected).

Overall impressions

 * Overall evaluation
 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is sufficiently complete. I do not see the problems that have lead to this article being C-class; perhaps because the album came out less than six years ago?
 * What are the article's strengths? The article covers everything objective or factual that one could need to know about the album as well as some quotes from those involved to provide insight into the topic.
 * How can the article be improved? I do not have any ways to improve this article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is more complete than I would have expected. I did not think that there would be this much pertinent information to know about the album.

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: