User:Jeffdnguyen921/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: (Welcome to Republic City)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I choose this article because I have been an avid cartoon watcher, I loved the prequel series and I choose this article because I would be interested in finding more information on this specific title.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No, although it does bring forth information regarding the topic it is missing critical information regarding the characters, players involved, and production.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it gives a basic description and nothing that is further evaluated on later in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * I think information relating to the previous series and the tie into the later parts of the series is missing. I also think the authors of the story are not present and that is important to mention. In terms of the episode itself, it is missing a basic summary and the premise in the lead itself.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No, it is very short and missing a lot of information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Although it describes the plot it mostly brings up previous events before the actual events, hence, not providing much information in terms of the actual episode itself.
 * It brings forth information about the series as a whole and not the specific episode at hand hence not staying on topic
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The information is up-to-date to an extent, I think it is just missing information recently like it was added to Netflix.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In terms of information missing it is missing the production portion of the series and episode. In a previous article that is similar it shows information on reception of the specific episode, this article does not.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, it does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * I think the article is fairly neutral it brings forth facts and does not have much opinion in the piece as a whole.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * In the reception portion of the article is really the only biased part and is not really supported by facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the viewpoints as a whole are underrepresented and does not provide the amount of information necessary that really represents the holistic approach of the topic itself.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It does not really, I think it has facts maybe some stuff are saying that this show is greater than others, but I think overall you really have to dive in deeper to really see that position of favor.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not really there were some secondary sources available but one of the sources is a questionable pdf file.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not thorough enough they only dive into the short end of the debut.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current to their time and are not current now.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are written by organizations and do not include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * 2 of the 3 links work

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is well written and consise, despite not having a lot of information it is easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical errors or spelling errors of major importance.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is sectioned out and helps with the flow that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Includes an image from the episode itself.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Not well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The one image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There is only one image so it doesn't add any visual value.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There has not been any conversation going behind the scenes on this topic, the last conversation was in 2012.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated stub class and is part of a WikiProject on American Television
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Not much difference I think it just brings up the community aspect as it is rated stub class and of low importance.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Low importance and is not really updated regularly
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is organized well
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped and needs more information to be nicely laid out.

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: