User:Fuller2019/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bisque (food)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I really like bisque and have grown up eating it a lot as a child. There is enough information to have a good starting point, but also enough room to add to it.

Evaluate the article
Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

·       Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes there is a short sentence describing what Bisque is.

·       Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it does not have the sections in the article.

·       Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) The lead talks about chowder, which is not mentioned in any other part of the article.

·       Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and is only 3 sentences.

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

·       Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is relevant to bisque.

·       Is the content up-to-date? There is no recent news about Bisque on the page.

·       Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The page is missing content about the history of bisque and maybe some places bisque has been seen in current news.

·       Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No it does not.

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

·       Is the article neutral? Yes it is neutral.

·       Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

·       Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

·       Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No

·       Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

·       Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes everything has a resource, but some are blogs that might not be reliable.

·       Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There should be more sources used.

·       Are the sources current? Yes they are current.

·       Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There is not a range of authors.

·       Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Yes there are articles about health benefits to eating soup/bisque.

·       Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

·       Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There is some parts that are choppy and don’t flow well.

·       Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No it didn’t 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? Yes the article is split into different sections. The sections should be more organized

Images and Media

·       Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one picture.

·       Are images well-captioned? It has a short caption.

·       Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.

·       Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

·       What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are a few additions that are suggested in the talk page. There is also a discussion about changing the name to lobster bisque but it had been opposed 3 times.

·       How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a stub and is mid importance. It is part of WikiProject Food and Drink and France.

Overall impressions

·       What is the article's overall status? The article is rated a stub and is choppy and missing some information.

·       What are the article's strengths? The outline is there but there is very little detail.

·       How can the article be improved? There should be more detail on bisques role in food and its history of the soup.

·       How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped with certain parts missing.