User:Hewtay/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.


 * The Chaser's War on Everything: The Chaser's War on Everything
 * This article discusses political satire on an Australian television show. The topic of satire is a constantly controversial topic in communication studies in terms of its role in the public sphere and I am interested in obtaining an Australian perspective regarding political satire in the hopes of comparing and contrasting it to American comedy shows and satire.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the article does include a clear and concise introductory sentence that describes the topic of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, under the "content" section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead is all-encompassing and covers all the contents throughout the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There are many technical details, which give validity and credibility yet they slightly distract from the main subject matter.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article is very relevant to political satire and comedy.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, there were many edits in 2020 with the most recent being in February.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content is comprehensive and features the entire apparatus of the show.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Being that it describes only events that had occurred in the show or the structure and segments of the show, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? The technical details of the network are slightly distracting however all the other information is impartial and balanced.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article is a mere recollection of events that occurred in the show without opinionated commentary. Furthermore, it is simply a description of what the different parts of the show entail.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes there are a total of 80 references which provide a thorough stream of secondary sources to read and evaluate.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, many of the references are independent of the show and the topic which means that the show has been well-cataloged in many independent publications and the information in each of these is adequate in terms of painting a complete picture of the topicc.
 * Are the sources current? Relatively speaking, yes. The show was cancelled after three seasons before the turn of the last decade (2010) and therefore the sources provided in that article as well as the descriptive nature of the article renders the sources current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling errors but there are a few grammatical errors and awkward sentences, however, they are not frequent enough to detract from the main content of the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes the article's structure is in accordance with its table of contents and digresses smoothly from subject to subject.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has enough images in it to get a sense of the show's visual setting.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, all the images are descriptive of the action in them and - when relevant - they are dated.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Their is nothing necessarily exciting about the layout of the images but they do add life to the content of the article, making it less dull and wordy.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are many conversations on the article that pertain to the adding or rearranging of certain segments of the article to be more relevant to the (then) current political events, such as elections.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated "C-Class Mid-importance" and is a part of 3 Wikiprojects titled "Australia/Television." "Comedy" and "Television".
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In terms of the talk page, the article discusses more logistics than ideas. The talk page is also more concerned with the general overview of the topic as opposed to the specifics which we discuss much more deeply in class with reference to individual events and cases. The specificity and significance of individual events and occurrences and how they tie into a bigger picture is much more indicative of class discussion than it is of the Wikipedia article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article has not generated much noise in the past two years in terms of discussion which leads me to believe that the recent 2020 edits must have been minor copyedits or edits of insignificant nature.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article's content and timeline is conclusively verified, meaning, the events of the show are well documented and in chronological order that many people have agreed upon (with reference to the talk pages).
 * How can the article be improved? There have been disagreements on the sourcing of certain segments of the article, which slightly hurts the verifiability of certain points.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I believe the article paints a good picture for someone who has no idea what the topic is and its contributions to Australian politics and the public sphere. There are many references and points of dicussion that afford the reader a fair understanding of the topic as well as an opportunity to learn more about it through other Wikipedia pages and external links.

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: