User:Mdinglasan/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: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series finale
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose to edit this article because I have followed the series from the beginning but I am not an overly avid fan. After viewing the season finale I feel that I can review the article with some experience to pickup incorrect information and also check for bias.

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 introductory sentence gave a brief, clear description of the season finale including the episode names and led into a short plot summary and production credits. It touched on almost all major sections including the plot, production, casting, and its reception by the audience. All information from the Lead was discussed in further detail in the remainder of the article and it reflected a concise summary of the content.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article content is all relevant to the two-part series finale of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and has been updated as soon as this morning after being published August 13, 2020. Most edits to the page were made within the first three days of publication after the episodes aired and there has not been much change past that. While there is not much missing from the article, after reading the Talk section there is a debate as to if this should be split into two separate articles for each episode to properly assign certain cast members, audience reception, and plot points. The information is not necessarily irrelevant or incorrect it is just more related to the second episode. From what I can tell from the users listed in the Revision History, only one editor is male the other two do not have clear names or genders from their usernames or profiles so it does not seem like this piece helps with the gender gap on Wikipedia. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is very prevalent online but the movies tend to get more coverage than the television series. As the original spin off series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. had a fair amount of coverage in its infancy but has drastically dropped in its later seasons.

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
The tone of this article is factual and neutral without stating whether the episode is good or not, well constructed or note, etc. It is very straightforward in its coverage of the plot, production, and reception, only using opinion when quoting a source who was involved in the creation of the show or expressing the opinion of those who reviewed the show. I did not see any tones of persuasion or distinct viewpoints from the author.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Because this article is based on a television show for entertainment, many of the sources are entertainment sites who are not always credible but there are a few notable sources like The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, and CNN which are regarded as credible based on their reputation. For the most part they are used to pull quotes from the cast and crew used in interviews with these types of reporters but these can be taken out of context and are not necessarily fact in all cases. There are sources linked for almost every sentence and range from articles from the shows inception to the response after airing. There is a mix of male and female authors but it still seems to be predominantly male. After spot checking some links they all seem to be working properly and support the statements made in the Wikipedia article.

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
Many Wikipedia articles can be hard to read with irrelevant or extraneous commentary but this was a fairly easy to get through and understand. The plot summary was concise without giving away to much information or delving into smaller less prominent plot points and I found that each section was a reasonable length where if you were looking up a specific piece of information, each topic when into enough depth depth to understand it but not to the point where you need to go digging through pages of information to find a single source.

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
The only image listed is the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. logo but I think including a few photos from production or at least cast members would have been a great addition to help expand on some topics. Some novice viewers may not know what all of the characters names are or those who have not watched previous seasons may not recognize the recurrence of old characters that having a visual help make the descriptions more clear.

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
The only topic discussed on the Talk page involves if this page should be split into two articles to accurately describe each episode of the two-part finale but much of the commentary on the finale goes into detail of the finale as a whole and does not leave enough information for the first episode to have a thorough article. The article is rated as C-class on the quality scale by both the Television and Comics WikiProjects.

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
Overall I think that the article is well put together and comprehensive without any major bias or persuasion. It is clear and in depth without being overly cumbersome but with these types of topics it is difficult to find credible sources. I think it would be beneficial to cite some credible press releases and find the sources the entertainment news companies cite instead of vice versa. It is well developed and covers the topic thoroughly.

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: