User:Kvicich/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: Husky
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I was having a hard time choosing which topic and this one seemed the least intimidating

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No, it is semi confusing and self-contradicting
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very under detailed, does not mention the topics that are talked about in the rest of the article

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Some sections are, but there is not enough detail to make much sense
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, most recent links and edits are from 2014, only one from 2019
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, many opinions that do not need to be included and information about topics that is not relevant

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?
 * Traditional Alaskan Native information relating to the dogs seem underquoted and with hints of cultural appropriation, using the now often derogatory term "eskimo" without much thought
 * 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, three appear to be some opinions
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * No
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Not all of them, most are from books

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No, the train of thought is not easy to follow and back tracts quite a bit
 * 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?
 * No, not all of the topics mentioned are explained and the order is confusing.
 * No, not all of the topics mentioned are explained and the order is confusing.

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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * A lot of talk about opinions vs truth, some mention of Alaska Native history
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C class for Indigenous People and Alaska, B class for dog breeds
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Very similar

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Definitely needs work!
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Good use of images
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Needs more fact based statements and less opinions, more culturally sensitive approaches, and better train of thought
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped, good section topics but bad content within each sections

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: