User:Grizzbuzz/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: Global (cutlery)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article, although not labeled as a stub is barely more than one from what I've seen in comparison. It seems that there is only superficial information. Personally I know a lot more information exists around these knives both information about use and technical specs that exist as well. In addition this page has been flagged as having the issue of the major contributor being too closely connected to the subject so I might be able to rectify that.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * While the intro is pretty clear it is very minimal and is missing vital high level information about the Global brand of cutlery.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the Information in the lead is restated later in the "History"
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise but I think it is too concise and missing information that should be there.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, content is related
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Mostly but there are some sources and details that should be updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is content missing from the article

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * It appears to be largely neutral but has been flagged with the contributor being too closely connected to the subject.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not hugely but some statements could be less biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no differing view points in this article to be under or over represented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not really

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No they are not.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not fully, there is more information out there that is not presented.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Slightly out of date, most recent source in 4 years old while most are 6 or more years old.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most do but a handful don't work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Article is actually quite well written, just sparse on the information in some parts.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No glaring errors, some awkward sentences but largely okay.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Only two sections exist so yes but info is again very limited so organization is inherent because of the limited ways to organize 2 sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only one image.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Sort of but again only one photo so limited arrangements available.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Critics about sharpening techniques and issues about the articles seeming like an advertisement.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as a Stub/Start of mid importance. It is not a part of any wikiprojsects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is not much productive going on the talk pages. Not very active and not changing much.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It needs content added and changed so that it is no longer flagged as too closely related to a contributor.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has a pretty decent features section.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There is a lot on new information or at least updated information and sources that need to be added.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Article is incomplete and missing vital information.

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: