User:Kelsey.rakoczy/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Story Workshop

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The Story Writing Workshop is a method to teaching writing at the elementary and secondary levels. I have a major in English, and teach writing to my elementary students.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The lead section has an introductory sentence that is concise and clearly describes to the article's topic.
 * The lead includes a brief summary of the article's main sections, though there are few.
 * The lead contains several pieces of information that are not in the main article.
 * The lead is concise.

Content


 * The content is relevant to the topic.
 * Citations are outdated.
 * There does not appear to my content missing based on my knowledge.
 * The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance


 * The article has a neutral point of view.
 * The article does not appear to be bias.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References


 * The article is missing reliable secondary sources of information.
 * Source list is not thorough.
 * All sources are over 20 years old.
 * The main reference of this article is the primary source.
 * There are large pieces of direct quotes from the primary source.
 * Only two references that are not from the primary source.
 * Several links in notes section do not work.
 * There does not appear to be updated sources available for this topic.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * Writing is concise with no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The article can be broken into more parts. The only sections are main features, measured results, and notable writers.

Images and Media


 * There are no images or media for this article.

Talk Page Discussion


 * There is no talk page discussion for this article.

Overall Impressions

This page is troublesome in several areas. Primarily, in the lack of information for secondary sources. There are direct quotes from the author, which should be paraphrased. The source list is not thorough, and all sources are from the 1970s-1990s. Several links do not work in the notes section. There will need to be updated secondary sources for this article to be considered reliable.

The article gives a basic understanding of the topic. This article is underdeveloped.