User:HAHoffmanUAA/Evaluate an Article

List of regional nicknames
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I found it interesting to see how nicknames vary based on location, as well as whether or not they are offensive and how they were formed.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really a description, but since the article is a list I think the organizational choice of A-Z works for the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it was just updated September 21st of this year as well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't know all the regional nicknames for people, but I'm sure this list is missing some. For example, there aren't any terms related to Alaskans.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not really, everything is very unbiased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there isn't any view at all.
 * 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?
 * Assuming each list item is a fact, then yes each are backed up by a source, mostly Wikipedia articles related to the region specified.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, most link to other pages on the subject.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work, however the author only provided a few links to sources seemingly at random and it does appear that some are missing despite having links within the text.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think it is very well-written. The list format makes it clear and easy to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Each point in the article is organized in the same fashion which helps give a uniform appearance which in turn helps to better the format of the article as a whole.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images
 * 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?
 * I don't see much conversation, but there are many edits made to the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * I couldn't find a rating anywhere, but this article doesn't seem to be a glowing and raving piece.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article provides more of an informal informative list whereas there is a lot more at play in the way we speak of people and assign meaning to words, which wasn't discussed in this article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Active with some revision
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I like how the article provides links within the text to define and give example of what they are discussing without having to leave the page.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Better sourcing, expanding research and finding more examples to fill the list.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say the article is under/well-developed. The article as is, is good. I think it would benefit from more information though.

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: Talk:List of regional nicknames