User:Gauritaneja/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: Public interest design
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because it is related to my Public Economics and Welfare Class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, except for one section (Professional Networks).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The page was last edited in September 2019, and the content seems up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No there is no content missing, or content that doesn't belong.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Yes, there is less on the actual projects, and more about networks and conferences related to Public interest design.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No there are some facts that say "non-primary source needed."
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked 5 links, out of which the IP address of one could not be found.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 it does not, however, the first sentence of the article is a little bit long, and hence awkward.
 * 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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images
 * 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?
 * Most conversations are regarding whether there is a clear definition of "public interest design" vs a "non-public interest design.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It has not yet been rated on quality or importance. It is part of WikiProjects Architecture.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not talked about it in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is short, but gives the necessary, crucial information.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has a lot of information about the networks and conferences regarding this topic.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * By adding pictures, adding necessary secondary sources, and adding citations where needed.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it is a little bit under-developed, but this could also be because there is very little information available on this topic in general.

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: