User:Iparr011/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: Fortune cookie
 * Considering my campaign is based around cookies with hidden messages inside them, I believe it's time to look over the progenitor of such a concept and how it can be improved.

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
It leads with a solid sentence, although an overabundance of commas make it awkward to read at first glance. It feels overly detailed at times, with facts that could have been left to the body of the article instead (such as the talk about lottery numbers or the specifics about Japanese fortune cookies). Regardless, all information presented in the lead is also present in the rest of the article, with mentions of the article's major sections.

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
If the content is not up-to-date, I wouldn't be able to tell. I come here to learn after all, so I cannot say I know better than the people who wrote this article. Similarly, it's hard to tell if there would be missing content as well. I can at least say, however, that some content in the article doesn't feel very relevant. The popular culture section, although expected, feels more unnecessary than ever, and the marketing section is not only awfully short, but could have easily been included in the aforementioned one instead. The "Asian stereotype" section is also more or less just a repeat of the previous "Chinese legend" part, and one of these could have been included in the other instead.

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 seems positively hellbent in convincing us that fortune cookies are, indeed, not Chinese. Granted, it does offer plenty of sources to support it, so said statement is quite correct, but it still comes across as persistent. Regardless, it does not feel overrepresented, and everything else seems objectively neutral.

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
The article offers plenty of sources, and all sentences are backed up by an appropriate source(s), or by a source given right before it. Although most of them feel like they were copy and pasted straight from the source. Regardless, sources are throughout and relatively recent, none being more than 20 years old. Most link work, except for a few that lead to dead ends.

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
On the bright side, the article is well-written, easy to read, and lacks grammatical/spelling errors. The worst I can find is some repeated words here and there. However, when it comes to organization the article is rather lacking, with stray short paragraphs that feel out of place, unnecessary sections, and a weird introductory order for each major point.

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
Yes, it includes images, with proper captions to boot. They provide visual aid regarding the story of fortune cookies, how they are made, and how they look like. All of them adhere to proper copyright, being either thanks to being granted permission, being part of the public domain, or being self-published. All of them are part of Wikimedia Commons as well. They are clustered together in an unappealing way, however. Understandable, as the article is not very long, but still feels like too much in one place. Plus, they're all located in the first sections, meaning most of the article feels barren in comparison.

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
Conversations seem to revolve around ways to improve the article, with a few stray jokes here and there. A lot of these are also questions that might or might not have been answered. Lots of nonsensical suggestions as well, though thankfully these are shut down accordingly, just as edits correcting uncited information is properly discussed before being carried through. The article is not rated, although it is part of around 4 WikiProjects. The discussions are just as expected, if a bit more informal than how it is talked about in class.

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 article is fine, but could be better. It is well-written, offers helpful images, is up-to-date, mostly neutral, and with proper citation. But the organization leaves a lot to be desired, feels a bit biased at times, and small mistakes are made from time to time. It feels close to being good, but not quite there, which is why I could see myself working in it. It's rather underdeveloped, but requires just a few fixes to make it complete.