User:Ma-Maysha/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of the Article Utopian studies

 * Utopian studies: Link
 * Explanation: I know nothing about Utopian studies, and I was pretty interested in learning what correct and cited information it has.

Lead


The Lead includes a concise and clear introductory sentence. There's a content section that includes the article's major sections; however, in the lead paragraph, there's not much mention on the major sections. The information in the Lead is somewhat included in the article, and it's pretty concise in general

Content


The content is relevant to the topic, nothing seems to be missing, and all things seem to belong there. The content was last updated in October of 2018, so it's pretty up-to-date.

Tone and Balance


The article is neutral. Nothing is biased toward a particular position. Some of the viewpoints under Significant utopian studies scholars (in roughly chronological order) seem a bit underrepresented, but only because they don't have a link to lead a reader to their own wiki page. The article is not persuasive in any way.

Sources and References


All the facts are backed up by a secondary source of information (the external links). The sources are thorough and current. All the links that I've checked (about 5 links) worked.

Organization


The article is very well-written! The tone stayed neutral and it was very easy to read and understand. There aren't any grammatical or spelling errors, and the article is well-organized into important major topics.

Images and Media


There are no images included, so this section can't be completed.

Checking the talk page


There were two questions asked about how to properly represent this topic. For example, the user Pearcebarr asked about the criteria of selecting "significant texts" that are in a particular section that has the same title. There isn't a rating for this article and it isn't apart of any WikiProjects; however, it is listed as a C-class articles. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic only differs in the amount of content that's provided. There isn't a lot of information on this topic, so the sections are just lists rather than paragraphs.

Overall impressions


Overall, the article is pretty good. It stays neutral, and it's very easy to read and understand. However, there isn't a lot of information provided for the article, so a couple more sources could potentially strengthen this article. The article isn't as developed as others, so I wouldn't say it's near completion.