User:Lccm72/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: Rodolphe Radau
 * The reason I chose this article was because of the lack of content, due to this I believe additions could easily be made to better the article.

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? No
 * 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
The article has no real guideline for the topics being explained. This could partly be because they don't have enough information to break the article up into sections.

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? Yes

Content evaluation
The content that this page has is accurate, and important to the article. However they failed to expand on any of the information more than a couple sentences. Making it feel like I read the end of a book without understanding the content before it.

Example of previous comment: The article says that he won the Prix Damoiseau for planetary perturbations in the motion of the moon, but neglects to go into detail on this.

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
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
They do a good job of keeping their opinions out of the article, and being strictly factual. The information that is posted does not make any wild claims, and can be confirmed by looking through the sources provided by the editors.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The links for the sources do work, are current for the topic, and are relevant to the information posted in the article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
There aren't any spelling errors, but the article does feel rather choppy with its short paragraphs. Each paragraphs seems to be written by a different editor, another editor should go through to round the article up.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

Images and media evaluation
No images or media are implemented on this page.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversations are happening
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Stub class that is a part of WikiProject Biography
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In class we tend to delve into what the person may have been thinking like with the knowledge of their time, and how they might have went against this established knowledge. This article was much more blunt without giving the reader any idea of why this person was significant, and how they changed established thoughts or added to them.

Talk page evaluation
None of the editors have posted any discussions on the talk page, this could account for the lack of progress on the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is desperately in need of more content, and was last edited in 2019
 * What are the article's strengths? If I had to say one thing for the article, its definitely concise
 * How can the article be improved? The source used for this article has plenty of information that hasn't been included into the article yet. Once more content is added to this article I could begin breaking it up into sections, and delving deeper into each section topic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? very underdeveloped

Overall evaluation
This is an article that needs a lot of work to thoroughly explain to readers who Rodolphe Radau was. Firstly it needs more content, but it also needs an overhaul in its formatting and use of imagery. For now its something that tells readers a few quick facts about Radau without the proper context included.

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:Talk:Rodolphe Radau