User:Keanmc/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: Black Death
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It is the article I'm editing for my project

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise- information is relevant

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes- includes mentions of various populations including those that are historically underrepresented. I'm not aware of any missing information in this regard

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? no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no; multiple citations needed or better citations needed
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes, includes sources from 2020
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes- 150+ sources with a wide array of authors
 * 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; organized well/easy to follow
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes- covers a lot of different aspects

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes, even includes a gif
 * 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? people questioning some data/the way things are represented/worded
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? B-class, part of multiple WikiProjects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? the major difference in the way Wikipedia presents this topic is the fact that they focus more on the way the Black Death affected people when they were alive, and doesn't really cover any archaeological aspects

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? good; could use a bit of improvement
 * What are the article's strengths? it covers a ton of information, but isn't difficult to follow or read. very thorough and neutral information
 * How can the article be improved? fixing places that need/need better citations
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? it is definitely thoroughly developed, but could use a section on relevant archaeological information

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: