User:LaurynB.7/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.


 * The Story of an Hour: The Story of an Hour
 * I have chosen this article because this was a story that I read in class and I enjoyed it. I am also familiar with the story so I thought it would be a good to evaluate an article about a story that I have read.

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 nice introductory sentence. The article is about a story and the lead explains when the story was published, who it is by, and the title it was given first before it was changed. It also discusses a little bit about the story and talks about how the story was controversial. The lead does not give a description about the major sections in the article though, which could be a nice addition. There is information in the lead that is not further discussed in the article even though it should be further discussed, so that could be added in. I think the lead is concise and has a good amount of detail.

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 articles information is definitely relevent to the topic because it is all about The Story of an Hour. It says that the content of the article was last updated yesterday so it is up-to-date. One area that I think is lacking in information is the summary section. I think it could have had a little more detail since Mrs. Mallards heart condition wasn't mentioned at all, Richards was also not mentioned even though he was the character that found out Mr. Mallard had supposedly died, and I think it overall could have had a little more detail. I think the rest of the sections were good though especially the critical responses.

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
This article is very neutral because it talks about the summary and themes in the story but it also includes a section called critical responses where it mentions many different people's perspectives and evaluations of the story. This section of the article isn't there to make the reader favor a specific idea, but it is just to inform the reader that there are multiple ways of interpreting one story. We don't know how the author intended the story to be interpreted so I think this section was a good idea.

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
It seems like all of the facts are backed up by reliable sources. I looked at a few of the links to make sure they worked and they did. The sources that I looked at seemed thorough and informative. They seemed to be written or updated recently. I think they were good reliable sources to use.

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
This article was definitely easy to read and very strait forward. It was organized into clear sections that discussed major topics which was helpful. There were some sentences that probably could have been worded a little bit better and the summary section could use some work but for the most part I thought it was good. I didn't notice any spelling errors in the article, but there are a few grammatical errors.

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 were no images included in this article. Maybe some could be added to make it more appealing.

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 conversations about how to make each section better, adding in a section about symbolism, and comments about grammatical and spelling issues. A main topic that was discussed on the talk page was about fixing the summary. I still think it could be fixed and some people have recently been suggesting what could be done to fix it. The article has been rated "start-class" on the quality scale and "mid-importance" on the importance scale. It is part of WikiProject Novels and WikiProject women writers. Wikipedia discusses more ways that the story can be interpreted than we talked about in class.

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 this is a good well developed article. There could be more focus on fixing the summary section and grammatical errors in the article. I liked that they had the critical response section because I thought it was helpful in showing different perspectives. The article is short and to-the-point which I think is good. Even though it is short, it has all the information needed (besides the summary section) to be considered well-developed.

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: