User:Gmuckey96/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: (Vernon, Florida (film))
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It's a film that I quite enjoyed.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

==== Lead evaluation: It does introduce thee topic in a clear and concise manner. It discusses the controversy surrounding the film's original identity, Nub City, in the Lead with a citation that could have lent to a more detailed subsection revolving around the controversy itself. ====

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

==== Tone and balance evaluation: The article is neutral for the most part; the claim that the film garnered critical acclaim comes from only three sources, one of which is it's rotten tomatoes score which sits at 100% but only after 12 reviews. ====

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

==== Sources and references evaluation: All of the sources are reliable and the links still work. I doubt that this is all of the literature on the topic, it seems like there's quite a bit that could be added. ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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


 * 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?

==== Images and media evaluation: The single image used is appropriately captioned. It claims to be posted using fair use but doesn't follow up on that with any sort of citation or caption relevant to its use. ====

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

==== Talk page evaluation: There's actually a notice on the talk page about the fair use claim I just mentioned, it's dated February 2008. One of the links was updated to a web archive version of that link because the original site no longer exists. It is supported by WikiProjects Film, but is rated a stubclass article. ====

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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: