User:Hannahelaine25/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: (link) Church music
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am interested in what I can contribute to this page, because the majority of the music I listen to is Christian.

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
There is not a strong lead, it only explains what this article is not instead of what it really is. There is no brief description of any sections. Yes there is information in the lead not present in the rest of the article. It is a short lead, but isn’t effective.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is mostly relevant to the topic. The content could use an update. What it already there seems to belong, but there are topics that should be covered that aren’t.

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. The carol section is a little underrepresented. The tone seems serious, only talking about facts.

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
No, the lead needs to be verified. A lot of what the article says links to other wikipedia pages, giving it sources. Some of the sources themselves are not full and reliable wikipedia pages.

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?

Organization evaluation
The article seems all over the place. The lead doesn’t do well to introduce it. It is grammatically in tact. Major points aren’t overall introduced, the article just goes straight into them.

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
Half of the images help to understand the topic, while the other half don’t. The captions on the ones that don’t do a good job try to explain why they are there, but not in a good way. Yes, they adhere to the regulations. They could be spread out more instead of clumped to the one side.

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 discuss this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is not very well run, it is overrun with snarky comments. This article is C-Class and mid-importance.

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?

Overall evaluation
The overall status of this article is okay. It needs a lot of work. Strengths include its separated sections and some of the images. It can be improved with a better lead and description of upcoming sections. It is underdeveloped.

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: