User:Genesis7v/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of Article Taoist Art
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Taoist Art
 * I really enjoy art and so I decided to evaluate this article because I wanted to make sure that it would be helpful to me and to others as well.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead did include an introductory sentence about Taoist art that clearly told me what I would be reading about. The article only really had one major section which was concept, so the Lead did not include a major section description. I believe that more sections could have been added and the article as a whole expanded. The Lead did a very good job of only writing about the information they announced they were going to write about. The article was well written, in a concise manner.


 * 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 was relevant to the topic mentioned and there were no excess of information that was non relevant. The article mostly talked about the past so no it as not really up-to-date because current Taoist art and artist could have been mentioned and written about. I do believe that Taoist art is underrepresented because it is not as popular or well known as other art types.


 * 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 was written as neutral as possible with no bias.Because the article has no obvious oppositional views there were no bias to one side. It was a straight forward informational article. All the information presented was adequately presented although I do wish there was a smoother transition between the historical and philosophical information, it kind of blended together.


 * 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
 * As far as I can tell the article is backed up by reliable secondary information. Some of the referenced are books so I cannot tell without getting the books if the information is reliable. One link provided by the article sent me to a page not found so I can't tell if the page recently go taken away or never existed in the first place. The source did have a variety of information templates so that was well done and except for that single source they all seem current.


 * 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

It is well written, easy to read and understand but the transition between philosophical and histortical aspects could have been better done. I could not find any grammatical or spelling errors so that was well done.


 * 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 did include images that enhanced the understanding and they well all captioned except for one. The could have been better placed as a enhancer instead as the dominant as was sometimes the situation. One of the imaged was not captioned nor cited as far as I can tell, so not it did not adhere to the regulations.


 * 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 was only one conversation which was about the transition of historical and philosophical information. It is not part of any WikiProject and is considered a stub to the topic Taoism.


 * 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 article could have been expanded to include famous Taoist artwork, artists, and current Taoist art information. What it did talk about was well written with no detectable bias in a clear, concise manner. The article was overall underdeveloped because it barely scratched the surface of information available about it.


 * 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: