User:EliseSembach/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) Dixie Overland Highway
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

''the article is one of significant historical importance, however there is very little information, and I could easily see a way to add a lot more of significant and relevant information. There is no map or pictures or even descriptions of the road.''

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
''No the introductory sentence does not describe the topic as well as it could have, it also refers to the road in past-tense even though the road is still around today, the article does not lay out the different sections or summarize them in any way, even though there would be easy potential to do so. The lead is straightforward and describes what is present. The Lead is short and concise, not detailed, I definitely think there could be added some information.''

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
''The very limited content of the article is relevant enough for the topic, the problem is just that there is not enough information to really gather thoughts about the article, the content does not seem up to date or contemporary in any way. There is quite a bit of content missing which is why Wiki qualifies it as a "stub" article, they even say on the page that there is not a map and that there needs to be made significant additions to the article in order for it to be considered a class article rather than a stub.''

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 current article is neutral and there doesn't seem to be any bias or strong opinions taken in the text, the view points seem neutral and underrepresented, there is no opinion or tone in the article, the article does not attempt to persuade the reader into anything, tone is very limited and doesn't excite the reader or even the topic.

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
''There is only one reference, and even though the link does seem to work, there is a lot of information on the page that they did not use, they used a very small portion of the source. They do use in text-citations, and it is thorough, however there should be more sources added.''

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 concise, clear and easy to read because of how short it is, there is not nearly enough information as there should be for such a geographical landmark. There are no spelling errors or grammar issues from as far as I can see. The article is well organized, however not broken down into sections as there are no sections besides the Lead.''

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
There is one picture but it is more of a logo than a picture of the actual highway, there should for sure be a map and more pictures, the images are not well captured as there is none and therefore I cannot say if they adhere to Wiki's copyright regulations, if I were to edit this page, I would certainly add multiple visuals and a map.

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
''There are no conversations on the talk page. the article is rated as a "stub" and of Mid-importance on the importance scale. They said the article needs a Map and a KML file. This article is a good example of a stub class article like those we discussed in class.''

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
''I would say the article is not complete and needs a lot of work and visuals in order to be considered complete, the article can be improved by adding more history, discussing how far it is, where it runs from, the general information that other road articles have. Therefore, the article is not well-developed at all and would need a lot of additional work and need to have a lot of additional stuff added to it, in order to be considered complete, detailed and thorough.''

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: