User:Kvryme/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: Biphobia
 * I decided to evaluate this article because of many different discussions I've heard from peers talking about being bisexual and what they think it means, when they're not exactly bisexual themselves. I wanted to read this article to see more into where some thoughts could stir up from.

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 gives a well written introductory sentence, and it does not give a brief description on what the article's major sections will consist of, other than from the contents section. It's understandable and not too overly detailed.

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 article's content is relevant to the topic, it gives more information and cites from where a question or another topic may be introduced.

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 seems pretty neutral. Some parts or more heavy than others but I think it was properly explained towards the end of the paragraphs. The latter topics seemed biased or lacking more information or evidence as to where some information came from.

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
The sources listed are good and reliable, however, throughout some of the topics, there's a lack of citations or sources that'll give concrete evidence to prove readers if it's a current or reliable source. Some links on the references section need to be updated because not all of the links listed work.

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 does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. I believe it's broken down properly enough for people to understand its major topics and concerns, but I also believe some of the paragraphs or descriptions could be edited without sounding too harsh or biased towards the topics included.

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
There's only an image of the bisexual pride flag, and it gives a proper link to its Wikipedia page. If 'biphobia' was a newly introduced topic to someone, the pride flag could be misleading for them to see, as it is the only image given.

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's no conversations found in the talk page for this 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
I think the topics given were relevant and well explained. Some topics were missing citations or evidence as to where some information was retrieved, but the article does help readers understand its overall major points stated in its contents page. It does explain the topics given well and gives a little background information as to why its relevant to the overall article, but it could be improved by updating the content provided, add proper citations and references for the latter topics. I would rate it underdeveloped.

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: