User:Favaa98/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:American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate- I choose this article because I felt as though it would be relatable because I would like to eventually go on and become a teacher through a certification program.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? In this article, the second sentence is more structured as the introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes the lead offers a brief description only for the mission and history content. For example, it is mentioning what the mission of the program is and letting the reader know when the program was started.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article. All the information from the lead is explained in further detail in different sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise. It could have had more sentences about the content that is included in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic. It explains the mission of the program, how it works, awards, history, and the financial aid that is offered.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content is up-to-date. It was last edited in January of 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that is missing, although the writer of the article could have done without the financial aid section. That section is very short and does not blend well with the other content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this article does not address wikipedia's equity gaps or underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? This article is neutral. It is neutral because there is not any bias opinions given and it is more of an informative article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no heavily biased claims towards a particular position. It is a very balanced written article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints in this article are very balanced and informative.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article does not try to persuade the reader. If anything, it is just trying to let the reader know about the program.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the facts of the article are backed up by a reliable source. The facts are given with evidence to support it.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are of the article are thorough. After reviewing the sources, most of them are about teachers getting certified.
 * Are the sources current? The most current source that the article has is from the year 2015.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are from a variety authors. The article's information is not based off just one author's opinion.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? After checking the links, some of them work and some of them do not. If some of the links did work, it would take one to a page that is no longer available.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the article is very easy to read. I found that the article was easy to follow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors in this article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is very well organized and follows a consistent flow that reflects the major points of the given topics.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images included in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are no major conversations going on in the talk page of this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article was rated as Start class and low importance and it is apart of the wikiprojects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? n/a

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The overall rating of the article is start class.
 * What are the article's strengths? The strength of this article is its flow. It was easy to read along and catch on to the information that was being given.
 * How can the article be improved? The article could be improved by more information being added to it such as statistics, the overall passing rate, and more things of that nature
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article was underdeveloped. The article had a lot of potential to be more developed by adding in more information.

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: