User:KassideSE/sandbox

Model Article
I Shall Not Be Moved (poetry collection)

Article Evaluation: The World's Wife

 * 1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * 2) * Everything in the article seems relevant but it is oddly placed; in the introduction of the article there is a mention of the book of poetry sometimes being on school curriculums which I think could be on a different section. Under the "the anthology" section there is mention of two different adaptations of some of the poems, which again could be placed in a new section specifically for adaptations.
 * 3) Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * 4) * None of the information seems out of date but some of it needs sources and citations, there are claims about her life and inspiration for poems that seem correct but don't have citations to back them up, making it more speculative and interpretive than informative.
 * 5) * There is no section that discusses any type of critical acclaim or response to the book of poetry except for the oddly placed mentions of its place on curriculums and the adaptations; I think a section that discusses the reviews and, if found, the commercial success of the book would be a good addition. Also if possible, a section that discusses academic responses to it, e.g. essays, analysis, etc. could be interesting and could include the information about it's spot on school curriculums.
 * 6) What else could be improved?
 * 7) * Again, information and citations could be added, already present information could be more organized
 * 8) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 9) * A few sentences seem a little biased or they take a very hard stance about something that is arguable and should be presented as such.
 * 10) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * 11) * Not that I can tell, the article is very brief, and despite its faults, it still hits the key facts about the book
 * 12) Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * 13) * There are no citations, that I can find at least, only links to other wikipedia articles.
 * 14) Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * 15) * N/A
 * 16) What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes – – i.e. on the Talk page – – about how to represent this topic?
 * 17) * The talk page is very brief and mentions my same concern that the article is biased and needs quotations and apparently some of the links to other wikipedia pages should also be edited as they may be linked to the wrong reference

Essentially, the whole article needs a lot of work:


 * 1) the information on the page has no citation whatsoever and is slightly biased
 * 2) the links to other wikipedia pages needs to be double checked
 * 3) the information on the page needs to be reorganized
 * 4) and more information should be added to give a fuller picture of the topic.

The six good article criteria[edit]
A good article is:


 * 1) Well written:
 * 2) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * 3) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * 4) Verifiable with no original research:
 * 5) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * 6) all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * 7) it contains no original research; and
 * 8) it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * 9) Broad in its coverage:
 * 10) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * 11) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 12) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
 * 13) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 14) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
 * 15) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * 16) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.