User:Idarys Newrton/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) Talk:Apple Watch
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: If chosen this article because it's something that I have a lot of interest in and I know about the subject.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? For me the lead does not include an introductory sentence that concisely describes the articles topic because it starts comparing the Apple Watch series 2 with the series 1 instead of explaining "What is an Apple Watch?"
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead does include a brief description of the articles major description.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, because it doesn't give you information about the series 4, 5 and 6.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the articles content is revelant.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No, is not up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Theres content that's missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the articles neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are view points that underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The articles persuades the reader in favor of one position.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The majority of the articles are backup by a reliable resource but not every one go them.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They all work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Its easy to read, but there's information missing.
 * 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? It's well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned? No.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? They represent the topic with some basic information but also give credit to another author because it already talked about the information they're missing.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated deleted. It is an interest of WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia discusses this topic by a lot of information missing, what we've talk in class it doesn't differentiations because it tells us that It should've had more sources, information and credit.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Deleted.
 * What are the article's strengths? The writing and comparison.
 * How can the article be improved? By having more information, and more reliable sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? For me it is poorly developed.

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: