User:Jzuccarello21/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Celilo Miles

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.) 	Evaluate an article

'''Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:'''

Lead section

'''A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.'''

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Not really, The lead section only really mentions stuff from Celilo's career not her early life.

'''Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)'''

It does not.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Its quite concise.

Overall, the lead works well it is a decent summary of who Celilo is and what she has accomplished. The only thing that could be improved upon would be some mention of where Celilo grew up or some other basic details about her early life because right now this section is not mentioned in the lead.

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes

Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, it mentions that Celilo is going to ASU right now.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes, this article is generally bare. Also, the author includes a placeholder for where he wants to include a quote.

'''Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?'''

Yes, Celilo is a Native American Woman and this is part of a Smithsonian Wikiproject, Wikiproject Biograph / Arts and Entertainment, Wikiproject Women, and Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America.

The content that is present in this article is good but definitely incomplete. For example, the author includes "(FIND QUOTE)" in place of a quotation and the article is generally short.

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?

Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

There really are no viewpoints. This is a description of a person.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No

This article is generally neutral and is not positive or negative towards Celilo.

Sources and References

'''A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.'''

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

No, some sentences are missing quotations.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

I'd say so.

Are the sources current?

yes most are from 2022.

'''Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?'''

Generally yes, however, 3 of the 7 sources are written by the same person.

'''Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)'''

Not really. There are more news articles available but not that many peer reviewed sources to draw from.

'''Check a few links. Do they work?'''

yes

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Generally yes, some things could be touched up though.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are a few points where wording could be changed for more clarity but nothing major that I caught.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

It does not.

Are images well-captioned?

There are no images.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

There are no images.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

there are no images.

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are no conversations going on in the talk page.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

This is a C class article and it is part of the Smithsonian Wikiproject.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?

To me the article has a good basic structure and is generally well written but I think it is incomplete.

What are the article's strengths?

The article is written about a notable topic and is well written. It also has a good structure.

How can the article be improved?

The article could use pictures and elaboration.

'''How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?'''

I would say it is underdeveloped.

Examples of good feedback

'''A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.'''