User:Ewizard123/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: List of assassinations
 * I chose to evaluate this because it looked interesting after I had clicked through all the categories and subcategories.

Lead
Although it is limited, there is an introductory sentence that describes the topic of the article. There are no descriptions of the major sections, just links to the respective sections of the list. The Lead does not include information not present in the article. The Lead is concise.
 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic because it is a list of all assassinations. The content is up to date, it includes those that have happened this year. It does not appear that there is ant missing content or content that does not belong. The article includes global statistics for assassinations.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral. There are no heavily biased claims. There are no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints. There is no persuasion in the article.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source. The sources are thorough. The sources are relatively current, there are some from recently and some from a number of years ago. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. The links work.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is well written. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article does not contain any images.


 * 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

There were some conversations about removing some pieces of the articles because they were more based on conspiracy theories. It does not seem to have a rating or I just cannot find it. It is a part of three WikiProjects. We have not talked about assassinations in class.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The status seems good and up to date. Strengths would be organization and completeness. It could be improved by continuing to add to it as new events unfold and add more reliable citations. I think the article is well-developed.


 * 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?

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: