User:Kmguymon/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: L'Aquila
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I lived in L'Aquila for several months during my mission, but never got the chance to learn much about its history.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead has a good introductory sentence that is direct in its simple description of the city of L'Aquila. The Lead gives a lot of good information, but it does not cover the major sections of the article, especially the historical sections. All of the information is present later in the article, but it focuses a little too much on fluffy details that could be removed or used later in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is current and relevant with sections covering many relevant topics and sources and events up to 2016. Since it is a small town and honestly not much has happened since then, that is perfectly fine. There does not seem to be much content missing, although there are some sections that could be elaborated and some that need to be simplified. The historical section was probably the best written.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article was fairly neutral although there were a few biased adjectives and one biased account scattered throughout. No claims, however, seemed overly leaned toward one side or another. Many different viewpoints were represented and they all were treated fairly and disinterestedly. There were no attempts to influence the reader, only to inform.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There were a few claims that were not backed up by sources. One of the most prevalent was an axiom about the city that did not have any definitive source or someone that could confirm it. The sources appear to be thorough and current and the links work. However, some of the sources appeared to be from less reliable sites.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article was very well written, although the tone varied greatly between the historical section and the other sections. The information was more concise outside of the history section and a little harder to read, but overall intelligible. There were no errors that I noticed and the organization was very clear and helped the reader find the information they needed quickly.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article included several images of historical maps and famous sites in the city. The images were captioned and helped the reader get a better visual understanding of the topics. The images adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and were appealing, if a bit small.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There were a lot of conversations about helping the article adhere better to the Wikipedia guidelines. One was about correcting an inconsistency found in a graphic and another sought to take out some potentially biased or overly emotional information. It is related to three WikiProjects: Italy, Cities, and Kindgdom of Naples. It was rated a C-class article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article had a lot of strengths, such as the vast amount of information on multiple levels and interests. It is an active page that has a fair amount of discussion. It could be further streamlined to take out fluff and some more opinionated adjectives, but it is a very well-developed article with a lot of helpful 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: