User:Hongjoo (Angela)/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: Attention
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article because I found the part on attention interesting while I was doing the textbook reading, such as inattentional blindness or change blindness.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic, as the definition is stated.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections, as it says that it is a major investigation for a lot of sections like psychology and neuroscience.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead briefly talks about inattentional blindness, but it does not in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article's contents are relevant to the topic, as some of the contents include the history, subdivisions, and the contemporary studies of attention.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, this content is up-to-date as it says that it was last edited on the May of 2020 according to the talk page.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Maybe there could be more contents about what happens when we don't attend, such as inattentional blindness or change blindness.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the viewpoints are balanced.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there isn't any persuasion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information as they are linked by secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Although I have found some source that are current, there were also some sources that are not current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I have checked a few links but found one link that is not found.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is well-written. It was easy for me to read and understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not detect any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is well organized, as the topic was broken down to relevant sections that reflect the major and important points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I do not think there are a lot of images that enhance the understanding of the tipic.
 * Are images well-captioned? I think the second image could be captioned better.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Although the images are laid out well, there are not a lot of images in the article, but probably because it's hard to find images of attention.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Some conversations that are going on are how some subtopics lack on details, how there are some errors, some of the missing periods, and if some statements are not neutral.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as C-class which has some cleaning o do. It is part of Wikiprojects such as psychology, neuroscience, and religion.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The Wikipedia goes in more depth about attention then we've talked about it in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Although the article is not bad, I think it has some cleaning up to do, especially on the keeping the sources up to date. Some of the sources are outdated and some of the source links do not work. I also think that some information could be added, such as inattentional blindness and change blindness.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article's strengths is is covering broad subtopics of attention.
 * How can the article be improved? The article could be improved in updating the sources and more information, as well as adding more images that are relevant.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Although the article is okay, I think the article could be developed more and cleaned up more, with the information, sources, and the images.

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: