User:Jasminrw/Evaluate an Article

Article evaluation feedback
This is a fun topic to explore, and a nicely developed c-class article to evaluate! You have a range of thoughtful observations here and you do a nice job discussing the dates of some of the sources and some additions that you think would help continue improving the article. A couple of sections of your comments don't quite match the intent of the questions in that section, but still demonstrate good evaluation work. Nice job with this! Nicoleccc (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Alien abduction


 * describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

The link in my Wiki Training exercise led me to a topic about paranormal experiences. I came across Alien abduction and thought it would be an interesting read.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead sentence is what pulls you into the article and explains what its going to be about. It states a way to define what an alien abduction experience is. The article itself is full of a wide range of relating topics, involving so much more. I feel that the lead is transparent about describing the overall definition of what the article is about, it is not overly detailed in a good way because it lists just enough information while allowing the audience to keep reading.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The part that strikes me most about this article is that there were sections including information about trauma experiences, and child presentation. The oldest edits on this article were created in 2004, and there were a decent amount of changes made just this year. I would like to see more in depth content throughout the article but I enjoyed the wide range of subjects listed.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article presents its information in a neutral writing tone, and included a section for perspectives. They seem to show options expressing differences of opinions and experiences among people who claim to experience this, and professionals. I think the landmark cases would benefit from having more occurrences included if research can be done for it. I enjoy seeing that there is a guideline of what kinds of things occurred during these abductions.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

After going through the article I selected a few different citations and did find them to work correctly. It was interesting to find such a wide variety of sources, and this can only benefit the growth of the article. A lot of the sources are dated pretty far back into the past. I would like to see if there have been changes done to any of them since.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Alien abduction was an interesting read and it was easy to comprehend because it is really well organized. I would like to see more details about a few of the subjects, I think this would add even more spark to the audience's interest. After skimming the article for spelling errors I did not see anything pop up immediately. I would like to spend more time reviewing it for possible grammar and content errors.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

Images don't apply to Alien Abduction.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

This C-Class article is part of the Paranormal project, and Skepticism. The visual of the Talk page is a lot different then how I first pictured it. I had some trouble locating the editor discussion area.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

This article is rated C-Class. Its strengths involve organization, and range of subjects. It could be improved with more developed subjects, and new sources.


 * 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?

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: