User:JBMtz/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: Isfahan Observatory
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because our class briefly talked about the Isfahan Observatory.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. The Lead just summarizes information from the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is very concise.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is concise and provides the basic information about the Isfahan Observatory.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. Everything relates back to the Isfahan Observatory.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Most of the content comes from sources within 20 years, so it is relatively up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Is seems like more content could be added to make the article more comprehensive, but everything that is there belongs.

Content evaluation
The content is relative and up-to-date, but could use some further research to expand on what is already written.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. The information is presented as factual.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. All claims seem substantiated in their evidence
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No. The topics are covered relative to their significance.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. The writing is not persuasive but informative.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article takes a neutral tone and covers topics according to their importance. It is well-written in terms of tone and balance.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. Nearly every fact has a source attached.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. Most are within 20 years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Many sources are used which are up-to-date and relevant to the information presented.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is very well-written. It does not use complicated vocabulary nor complex syntax.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None were found.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written, clear, and well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
No images were added to the article and should be to enhance understanding.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * No conversations have been started.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article was part of a WikiProject and is rated as Start-Class.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It gives more in-depth information about the location and history of the Isfahan Observatory as well as the people involved. Other than that, it is the same general idea.

Talk page evaluation
No discussion has been started for the article, but several people have referenced the article. It seems like people think the article still needs development.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article covers a lot of useful information but still needs more to make it complete.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is very clear and includes strong sources.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by finding new sources and adding more information to further elaborate on the topics discussed.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * In terms of what is already written, the article is well-developed. However, it is underdeveloped considering the massive amount of information that is available on the topic.

Overall evaluation
The article seems reliable, up-to-date, and follows the Wikipedia guidelines. However, it should include more information and images to further help the reader understand more about the Isfahan Observatory.