User:Hazelpear/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.


 * Vercelli Cathedral https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vercelli_Cathedral#/random
 * I chose this article because I selected random and this was the first one that caught my interest, it also appeared to be decently structured and good information.

Lead

 * The lead of this article is good. It makes it very clear what the article is about, giving the name of the cathedral and it’s location, as well as the Saint it was made in honor of. It does briefly touch on the topics of the article. Particularly with the mention of the bishop, it includes a history section as well as information regarding the treasury and library. The article isn’t very long, but it has all the information you might want on this topic. The lead does not include information that isn’t present in the article. It is a good, solid lead that is interesting and does its job.
 * The lead of this article is good. It makes it very clear what the article is about, giving the name of the cathedral and it’s location, as well as the Saint it was made in honor of. It does briefly touch on the topics of the article. Particularly with the mention of the bishop, it includes a history section as well as information regarding the treasury and library. The article isn’t very long, but it has all the information you might want on this topic. The lead does not include information that isn’t present in the article. It is a good, solid lead that is interesting and does its job.

Content



 * 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 relevant and as far as I can tell up to date on the cathedral. All of the information appears to be relevant, and nothing seems out of place. The article could use a little bit more information or pictures though.

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, it presents the information in a clear, concise manner. As it is mostly just historical information, there isn’t a lot to be biased on, and it isn’t.

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
There is only one citation, but a lot of links to other articles. This page could use some work on getting the sources, as it only has one reference. All of the checked links work, and the source appears to be current.

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
It’s a small article so there isn’t much to mess up, it is organized in a way that makes sense. No spelling or grammatical errors that I noticed. I feel there could potentially be another topic, perhaps about the architecture as that isn’t really focused on.

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
There is only one photograph, and while it’s a good one, the article needs more. It all fits the copyright regulations, and the image is appealing to look at. It is just a bit lackluster with only a single photograph.

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
Not a lot is going on, it was edited by someone in January 2020, but before that it was last edited in September 2018. There’s no real dialogue happening behind the scene, just minor edits adding sources and fixing links.

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
It is small, but fits the rules and has good information. IT needs more references and photographs, but is otherwise a decent article. I think it is a little underdeveloped, as I mentioned previously it might do well to add a section about the architecture as it is a building.

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: