User:Kasedori/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.


 * Japan Echo: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Because I enjoy Japanese studies.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it appears to be up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As far I know, there is not.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Neither are an issue
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It does not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, although some sources come from the official website for Japan Echo.
 * Are the sources current?
 * They are mostly a few years old, but it seems like Japan Echo isn't really discussed very often, so that could be why.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There are many authors, but I don't think they include historically marginalized individuals where possible.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't notice any, so no.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * It's mostly just talking about grammar and spelling issues.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Is is rated as a "good article." It is part of the WikiProject Magazines.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It's less about verification of information and more about language issues.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It has a "good" status.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is clear, concise, and neutral.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It could have some more recent citations and a bit more information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I'd say it's well-developed for a topic that doesn't seem to have much information available.

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: