User:Juliesimz/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: Bibliothéconomie https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioth%C3%A9conomie
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

L'article est encore à l'état d'ébauche et ne contient que 6 sources, alors qu'il s'agit d'une page marquée d'importance maximum (avec raison ; il s'agit de la source et définition de toute la discipline bibliothéconomique).

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Oui
 *  Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Non 
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Non
 *  Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Trop courte. 

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Oui.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Il manque probablement des informations et ressources dans la section «Ouvrages importants».
 *  Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Il n'y a rien sur la bibliothéconomie universitaire ou privée (collections/fonds d'entreprises). 
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Non.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Oui.


 *  Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Non. (Quoi que quelques personnes importants féminins sont manquants.) 
 *  Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Des figures historiques féminines qui ont contribué à la bibliothéconomie. 
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Non.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Oui.
 *  Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Non. Il n'y a pas beaucoup de sources comparé à la littérature faite sur le sujet. 
 * Are the sources current? Oui.
 *  Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Non. Majoritairement masculin, cis et blanc. 
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Oui.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Oui. Q
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Non.
 *  Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Oui. Mais certaines sections sont inégales, en terme de contenu et de longueur. 

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Oui.
 * Are images well-captioned? Oui.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Oui.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Boff...

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? 0
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Projet SIB, Avancement ébauche, Importance maximum
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? 0

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Ébauche.
 * What are the article's strengths? Il y a déjà une bonne division de sections.
 *  How can the article be improved? marqué en gras et souligné dans les questions précédentes. 
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Ébauche. Je m'attendais à beaucoup plus d'information sur une page aussi importante.

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: