User:Kransom34/Evaluate an Article

Native American mascot controversy
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (Native American mascot controversy)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * In an attempt to improve it and inform myself

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, it includes what is going to be discussed in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Lead evaluation
It gives good insight to what the article is about but still uses a good job with the brevity of the statement.

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

Content evaluation
Each subtitle is informative and unbiased. There's many examples, and it's very informative and educational.

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, but I think there is a lack of perspective that could come from those most informed.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
As I said above, the article explains the many viewpoints without taking a side. There's room for making your own opinion but none stated in the article. But I do think that the reason that there's a lot of agreement within the page is because the perspective comes from the same people, and there would be more differing opinions if the people editing the article were representing the community being talked about.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of them, but there is a lack.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, most of them I saw were from either from 2013 to 2020
 * 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, easy to follow and easy to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I've seen after reading
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the topics are specific but not nit picky.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * 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

Images and media evaluation
There's an appropriate amount of pictures, they help the reader obtain a clear image of the topic in their mind.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most of the conversation is about whether or not the history that is being written in the article is correct.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It ranges from Mid-importance to Low-importance, or a GA-class. It is of interest to many WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In these discussions and talk pages, the people conversing seem to be very about their business, and are very adamant about their changes to the page or their opinions. From the conversations I read, people weren't set on giving up their edits or their opinions easily.

Talk page evaluation
There's good conversation going on, and the talk page shows that there has been a lot of time and effort put into this article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's meets the good article criteria.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It's descriptive, and gives background and history that allows for readers to walk away with a more informed opinion.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Maybe perhaps some of the subtitles can be fit into a larger one, there are a lot of them so maybe they could be put together.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well developed, it starts with the history, and the reason for why this it's even a page, and then goes on to give good reasoning and good perspectives.

Overall evaluation
This is a good article that has some room for improvement, but if somebody were to read it they would read it and become more informed and would not be persuaded by the article.

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: