User:JuliaGrace13/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: (Ghosts in Polynesian culture)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen this specific article because the after-life is something I have always taken an interest in and I think it would be interesting to see what other cultures think of the after-life as well. Especially to see the similarities and differences between my beliefs and their beliefs.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

I think the lead of the article gets the point across without sounding too confusing and describes the articles main topic fairly well. There is no brief description in the lead about the other sections of the article, only the box of contents. All information provided in the lead is the general idea of the rest of the article. The lead could maybe use some more detail and description about the topic as it is very short.


 * 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

I believe the articles content is relevant to the main topic, though it is very sparse in information on certain sub-topics. This article was last updated ion December 4, 2019. Some content that could be added is the location of the culture and other influences. It could also elaborate on the sickness aspect of the ghosts.


 * 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 seems pretty neutral, but does include some local legend stories. There aren't any biases in the article. The viewpoint is neutral, though some infomation can be expanded upon. The article doesn't attempt to sway the reader to any position.


 * 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
 * Most things are backed up by the sources. Some sources seem somewhat off topic to the article. Most of the sources used are from the 1990's and need to be updated. The most recent source was created in 2016. All the links seem to be working, though some of the links are from the same author and it brings you to a cite that looks rather unreliable and not academic. Others are from JSTOR.


 * 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

I think the article is well written, and easy to understand though gets cloudy when it comes to the language aspect of the culture.I didn't see ant grammatical errors yet in the article. I think the article can be organized better by putting the 'legends' section at the bottom and keeping the general information towards the top of the article


 * 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

The article only has one picture, and its a painting inspired by the ghosts in Polynesian cultures, so more need to be added to have a fuller understanding for viewers. Its caption is just the title of the painting and whom its by, nothing really relating to the actual topic. The image passes the copyright regulations. The only image is at the very top of the article so it makes the bottom seem very text heavy and not appealing to look at.


 * 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

There aren't really any conversations going on between editors, their mostly just adding information off of what others put and nothing else happens. The article is rated at a Start-class and is within the New Zealand Wikiproject. Though we haven't talked about this topic in class, we've talked about the afterlife within other cultures and I deem it similar to the way the article is explained the topic. We usually fully explain and talk about why they think that and how it applies to their everyday life.


 * 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

The article needs some work and additional information. The strengths of the article lies mainly in the 'legends' section rather than the general information on the topic. The article can be improved by adding information and images so the reader can have a better understanding of the topic.The articles completeness is pretty underdeveloped as it is a start class article and is relatively short overall.


 * 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: