User:Lucieamidon/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: Hadamard transform
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because I wanted more information on Hadamard transforms, since we have been learning about them in class.

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?
 * It mentions who it is named after in the lead and then not again in the article, but this is something that doesn't need to be stated twice so No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise (only two paragraphs).

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes. The last edit was March 5th, 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not see information which doesn't belong, it is hard to say whether there is something missing because I am not an expert on this topic
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No
 * No

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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No
 * Are the sources current?
 * No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

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?
 * Not that I can see
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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?
 * There are only two comments on the talk page, one of the comments was criticizing one of the analogies and the other was asking for more information to be included in the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * I do not see a rating but it is not featured. I dont see that it is a part of any Wiki projects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * No.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think that this article needs some work, the information that is there is good but it needs more sources/information
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It does a good
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Add sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * 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: