User:KauiLeFuJie/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article

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?
 * The article does have a good introductory sentence that clearly explains what classical Chinese other names are, what they translate to, what classical Chinese is and the time period which it took place!
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead section includes a brief contents tab with what one can expect to find in the article's main sections!
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * It does not contain anything that it should not!
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead section is both very concise and clear!

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?
 * The information is relevant!
 * Is the content up to date?
 * The information is Up to date!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content that does not belong, no obviously missing information, however I am sure there is probably something that could be added! For example, I feel like Historical use could be expanded upon.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article deals with Ancient Chinese History which seems to be an underrepresented topic.

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?
 * The article is neutral and merely factual.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There do not seemed to be biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Historical use of Ancient Chinese seems to be underrepresented and can should be added to!
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * I believe they are accurately described!
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * This article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position over another.

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?
 * Backed up facts do have reliable sources; however, I believe not everything is sourced to its entirety.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources appear to thorough on topic!
 * Are the sources current?
 * More recent sources do appear to be lacking.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources appear to be diverse.
 * 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.)
 * I believe their sources are good and reliable, however, increased current sources are needed if possible.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The Links on the page work!

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?
 * The article is well written and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any!
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is well organized!

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does include images that improve the understanding of the topic!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The Images are well captioned!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Images do appear to either be under license that Wikipedia has rights to or in the public domain.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are laid out in a visually appealing way.

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 seem to be very few conversations going on, none that have taken place recently.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any Wik Projects?
 * The article is listed as C rank and Level 4.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article has far more information than we have discussed in class.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is pretty good overall, but they lack recent sources and potentially all it sources so there is room for improvement.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article has very unbiased information and a lot of it at that!
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It sources can be improved, increased info is needed, and increased sourcing.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the article is fairly well developed with room for improvement!

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.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }
 * }
 * }

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Classical Chinese page on Wikipedia.

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

I choose this article out of the classes recommended as it seemed like the most interesting. I took Classical Chinese last semester so I'd loved to learn more about whenever I can!

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.)

Template documentation[ view] [edit] [history] [purge]

Usage
This template is used as part of Wiki Ed.