User:Kenidevlin/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: Museum of World Religions
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Religious studies is incredibly interesting to me and I am considering adding it as a minor. This seemed like the perfect opportunity to explore the topic more.

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? No, there is only one section below (Transportation) and that is not mentioned in the lead at all.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
This is a decent lead, however the lack of content through the rest of the article makes the lead appear to be the article itself.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it discusses the location of the museum.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the page was last edited in October 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It seems like there is content missing pertaining to what is in the museum. Currently, the page only talks abbout the museum as a whole with little to no detail.

Content evaluation
There is little content to evaluate, but what is there appears to be accurate and agrees with the rest of the information on the page.

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, the article is very straightforward with the facts.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there are no positions taken in the article.

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is neutral and unbiased, as a Wikipedia article should be, and presents the facts in a straightforward way.

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.
 * Are the sources current? No, but they are as current as can be expected considering the museum opened in 2001-2002.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No. None of the links took me to a viable webpage.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are a dead end for information. None of them provided a viable webpage or further information on the topic.

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? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No.

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written, but there is not enough of it to cover any major points of the topic. There need to be more sections going into more detail about parts of the museum.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? No.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Images and media evaluation
The single image on the page is not captioned and does not effectively communicate an image of the museum. If an article is only going to have one image, it should be a good one.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? One conversation where a bot appeared to be managing the links for the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a stub-class article of low-importance. It is a part of the museums, religion and Taiwan WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The Wikipedia discussion is more cut and dry, anti-emotional in it's discussion about the topic.

Talk page evaluation
Not used frequently and not helpful at all.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Low- quality and of little importance.
 * What are the article's strengths? It executes neutral voice well and provides some details about the topic.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding more information and more sections in the article portion would make the page more robust. Additionally, pictures pertaining to the topic would be useful.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is severely underdeveloped, it provides a skeleton of information pertaining to the topic and does not elaborate on anything.

Overall evaluation
A poor quality article that needs a lot of work.

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: