User:Fcmx02/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: Māori science
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I studied abroad in New Zealand and am interested in Maori Science

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead is sufficient, but it doesn't really flow into the article/discuss why the article is important


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, it gives a good introduction into the heading of the wiki article
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes, but can be better
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? yes, it's concise and states clearly the point of the article

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is all relative to the topic, but the science is not clear. It doesn't ever truly state what the purpose of Maori science is, and why it is important today.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? not particularly, there are stats that can be updated
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There should be more content about Maori advancements in the sciences

Content evaluation
The content can be expanded upon, especially in the impact section.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is pretty neutral, which is good, but it also gives off an uninterested tone because of how short it is.


 * Is the article neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * 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? no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The links need to be updated, and there just is not enough research and thorough information about this topic.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? mostly
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? somewhat
 * Check a few links. Do they work? some

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Organization is fine, overall.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images, and Maori science definitely has images that can be used in the article.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
 * 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

People generally seem pleased with the article, but also would like elaboration on topics to occur.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? people are discussing how some of the claims are not backed up entirely
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? "stub-class" it is a part of WikiProject Science
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? we haven't talked about this in class yet

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, this article was fine but it wasn't really that interesting to read.


 * What is the article's overall status? it is pretty decent, but needs to be expanded upon
 * What are the article's strengths? the content is neutral
 * How can the article be improved? more information and data with updated stats
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is pretty well developed, but can further be implemented

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: