User:Mehalkok/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: Background music
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I am very interested in music and its cognitive effects.

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? Yes
 * 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
Very well done. Concise, descriptive, informative.

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? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
Could be longer/more material, especially since it's a broader topic. However, in general, it was pretty good. It was concise, not overwhelming, and well organized.

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
Generally very neutral, although background music does not leave much room for opinion as it is generally a very neutral thing.

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? Could be better
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not really
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Only some

Sources and references evaluation
Could use a lot more sources and a lot better sources--this definitely needs work.

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
This was well done in my opinion.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
Needs more--could be really useful to have images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Lots of talk about the seriousness/legitimacy of background music as real music and what background music is really good for/where it really belongs.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I don't think it was rated very well, people have pointed out a lot of problems.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This is somewhat of a more casual, subjective topic but still very interesting. It is less about facts and more about how people react to music, so it is less dense and more opinionated tone-wise (though it is neutral).

Talk page evaluation
Very interesting discussion, a great addition to the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Great start, could definitely use work.
 * What are the article's strengths? Concise, well organized, interesting.
 * How can the article be improved? More sources, more information, images.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped but has the potential to be very good.

Overall evaluation
6.5-7/10

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: