User:Emwong201/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: Accessible tourism
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I am evaluating this article to gain a better understanding as to what is needed in order to improve the contents and information within this article. There may be many things that may need to be done, however by evaluating it, a basis as to where to begin as well as a strategy on how to approach can be formed.

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 in this article seems very short. The introductory sentence does provide a concise summary to the topic, however the remainder of the introductory paragraph lacks details that go into better depth of the major sections of this article. One of the main flaws in the lead only provides a definition of what accessible tourism is but does not go into additional detail that may be needed in the lead. While the lead is concise, it feels as if it is too concise to where necessary details are now missing in exchange for being concise.

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
Much like the lead, the content within each of the headings seem to be lacking a lot of detail. While it is important to be concise, it should not affect readability. The section brief history for example should be expanded to include a more in depth history. Much of what was covered in the overview should go into the lead and from there, more details should be added to reflect the lead and the content headers. The content can also be slightly more updated to reflect changes made in more current times. Overall, the content covered on this page is all relevant, but changes may need to be made to reflect more current times and more details may need to be added to make the page stronger.

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 tone in this article seems very neutral, but there are some instances in the article where it may seem biased in some way shape or form. These may need to be investigated further to determine if this is based off of information from a given source or if this was created as a bias. In addition, the source may need to be analyzed to determine if it is a reliable, unbiased, and current. While this is mainly seen in the overview tab, it would be worth it to verify all sections to ensure there is no bias present.          

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
The first thing I notice about the sources is that there does not seem to be enough sources to call this article reliable. Many of the sources currently used are also outdated as many sources seem to be from 2010 or earlier, as well as the sources appeared archived, and therefore inaccessible. Due to such a small number of currently used sources, there is a lack in diversity in the sources and references in the article. By adding expanding on the article overall, more sources will eventually be added and the diversity of the sources would thereby increase.

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 organization is there, but the article itself is rather difficult to read. In the current overview section, it is currently a lot of information with no place or organization. For the currently existing section specific needs and requirements, it is currently a bullet point list. While it does work, it could be better organized along with the images in the section. The current history section are all cohesive sentences, but they do not flow very well together. There are no grammatical errors in the current article, but the organization of the sections can be improved as well as the organization of the paragraphs to better aid in flow and readability.

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
All the images currently in the article are already well captioned and appear to adhere to the copyright guidelines of Wikipedia. They are also laid out in a visually appealing way so that it aids in understanding for the readers. As this does get reorganized, the images may move or may be rearranged.

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
The talk page of this article discusses many things. The major thing that is discussed is in regards to the sources. One of the things needed is to update the sources as many of the links are no longer working and do not lead to an accessible source. Copyrighted material also need to be removed and modified so that it complies to Wikipedia standards. The article is also part of two Wikiprojects: Disability and Travel and Tourism. The ratings for both of these projects is start-class, and it is also low importance for travel and tourism. It is interesting to note that this article was nominated for deletion at some point, but it ended up being kept. While the discussion on this topic appears similar to that in which it is discussed in class, the references and copyright violation are major things that need to be fixed in this article.

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
Overall, the article needs a lot of improvement especially on the expansion of information. While it is good as a basis and providing general information, information will need to be expanded upon to make it a stronger article. The current completion status stands at underdeveloped as it has the basic content needed but much of it is still missing and it should still be expanded upon. As the article expands, more citations will be added and the copyright violations will eventually be fixed as the writing progresses.

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: