User:Lilit Arustamyan/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.


 * Philippine Ceramics: (Philippine ceramics)
 * The main reason why I chose this article to evaluate is due to the fact that I am familiar with the subject (Philippine Ceramics), also, I skimmed the article and found that some changes can be made to make the article more accurate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence of the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The article is about Philippine Ceramics and the article starts by giving a background information of what philippine ceramics refer to.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Form my point of view, the introduction is too short and it does not include brief description of the article's major sections. Introduction should be improved because it only gave a brief description of what are Philippine Ceramics.The introduction must briefly describe the key point of the whole article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not include information that is not presented in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article content is relevant to the topic. The article is titled as "Philippine Ceramic" and the rest of the article talks about the history of the ceramics as well as talks about specific potteries and its uses.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * I believe the content is up-to-date because most of the sources that have been used in the article was published in 2012 and only one of them is from 1992. Therefore I assume the article content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is content that is missing because the table of contents of the article has only one section called "History". I believe more interesting information can be incorporated in the article. Also, more information needed to develop the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The article mainly talk about the history of the Philippine ceramics.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I believe the points are underrepresented. Some of the ideas need more clarification.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article was written in neutral tone and it does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not all the facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. More reliable sources needed to make the article strong. Also, there are some paragraphs in the article that are 10-12 sentences long and only cited once in the end of the paragraph.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * More reliable sources could be used in the article because the existing sources used were short articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Used sources are current, one of the sources are from national museum collections.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The article has five references, but one of the links does not work. It says "Page not found".

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is a bit hard to understand due to its organization. There is one long section called "history" and all the information the the article is written under this category. I wish there were separate paragraph for each section.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I have not encountered any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article organization is week. It does not broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article has several images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, all the images are well-captured.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, all the images were cited properly.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The pictures are not laid out in a visually appealing way. All of the images are on the right side.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * On the talk page of the article I could not find any reviews or conversations made by wikipedia users.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as C-class on quality scale and Mid-Importance on importance scale. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The way we have talked about this topic in class helped me to be able to evaluate the article. In class, we have discussed every important aspects for publishing a wikipedia page and evaluating it. Therefore, the way the topic is discussed in the class is differ from the way it discussed in wikipedia in a way that in class we went over everything step by step which made it easier for us to understand what we supposed to do.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale, and mid-importance on importance scale, meaning that the article is missing important content or contains much irrelevant material.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The strengths of the article can is that it has a strong background information. There is a whole section about the history of Philippine ceramics.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article have significant problems and require substantial cleanup. First of all the article should have more reliable sources which will help develop the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I do not want to say the article is poorly developed but it needs to be improved in many ways.

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: