User:Jhnola/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.


 * Engadine, New South Wales
 * My future in-laws live there and I am interested in the area.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it introduces the area and gives basic geographical info.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, via the contents immediately following.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is sufficient.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * By looking at the article alone, the information is somewhat dated. For example, the History section's most recent info cites the 1990's, Community cites 2007, and the Population cites the 2016 census. Looking at the talk page reveals how dated the content is. Three of the structures pictured are either no longer there or look completely different. The location of the War Memorial has also been changed. These changes don't seem to be reflected in the article's editing making it out of date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, I would definitely expect a climate section and information like topography, architecture, culture, and contemporary life.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No and no.

Content evaluation
The content is very lacking and out of date.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, very matter of fact.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is matter of fact in the information it provides and only seeks to inform.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are sections with very few citations, ie. History section. When checking the references, several of the few listed do not work.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, most of the sources are single articles or links to government websites.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Somewhat. Sites may be current but do not include recent information.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Some do not.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources and references are inadequate.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is well written, but does not include enough information.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Organization evaluation
The structure of the article is adequate, however more sections and information is quite necessary.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there are 5 pictures of landmarks however 3 of the pictures are not current.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes in terms of the landmark, however they sure include more detail to identify the structure as no longer being there and as a part of history.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes. They are wikipedians own work and contributions and license info is available on the picture's wikimedia page.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are near their corresponding section.

Images and media evaluation
The images are not an accurate reflection of the current town, so they are inadequate.

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 is a mention of 3 structural changes and a war memorial location change that are not reflected in the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C-class and low importance. It is part of WikiProject Australia and is supported by WikiProject Australian places and WikiProject Sydney.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It is not have very many reliable sources and has gaps in its information.

Talk page evaluation
There is not much activity and is only as recent as 2017.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Needs to be updated but it is not being worked on.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is unbiased and is informative of basic information.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It can be updated with more current information and recent pictures, and edited to include sections about the climate, architecture, and contemporary life.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
The article is underdeveloped.

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: