User:Mikaela07/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Assigned

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section


 * The first sentence completely describes the topic of the article
 * It does not talk about the other section that are in the article, like the history, context, implications, or pop culture
 * It does not talk about the publication date or how much he earned but its mentioned in the lead section
 * It is concise

Content


 * History and pop culture was relevant, but the other sections, context, implications were not super relevant to the article
 * It is pretty up to date with the most recent edit being September 19, 2023
 * The section of implications doesn’t really belong, there is info that really isn’t needed. There really isn’t any information that is missing
 * It doesn’t really deal with equity gaps. The only thing would be what we learned about the author and that he contributed to the New Yorker. It doesn’t address anything about underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance


 * The beginning of it is neutral up until the implication section. That section deals more with what the author of the article is getting out of the cartoon versus staying neutral.
 * The article doesn’t really show viewpoints except for the implications section. It does give a few viewpoints of Sherry Turkle.
 * The cartoon in itself might be trying to sway people but that due to it being a cartoon. The article itself does not try to sway anyone.

Sources and References


 * The sources used seem to be reliable. Except for sources 11 and 14 which don’t seem to be necessary for the article.
 * Yes the sources are thorough, all of the sources talk about parts relevant to the topic, such as the actual cartoons, the author, or the New Yorker
 * Yes the sources are current, the most recent sources are from around 2010-2017
 * A few of the sources work, while a couple of them do not work

Organization and Writing Quality


 * Yes it is concise and is easy enough to read and understand
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors within the article
 * It is well organized and they split it within sections that make sense

Images and Media


 * It includes the cartoon so yes it is relevant to the topic
 * The images are well captioned and explain what is being shown
 * Yes they adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * The images are laid out well in a visually appealing way

Talk Page Discussion


 * There is not much going on, the last update/conversation was from 2016, which was the ones adding the unnecessary links
 * It is rated good, it is part of a Wikiproject called “articles for creation”  “Computing internet” “internet culture” and “sociology”

Overall Impression


 * The status of the article says that it is a good one
 * The strengths are being concise and getting to the point
 * The article could be improved by staying on topic, not sharing their thoughts on implications, and using relevant information
 * It is underdeveloped, could use more relevant information

Which article are you evaluating?
Dime museum

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section


 * It provides a clear and concise lead sentence
 * It does describe a brief description of what the article is going to be on
 * It goes more into depth about what a dime museum is versus what the actual article is about, which focuses more on the location of these museums.
 * The lead section is very concise

Content


 * The content is very scarce
 * The content is relevant to the topic but the article is missing a lot more on the topic, it only focuses on the locations that these museums were at
 * It is missing a lot of info, like background info on what a dime museum is, more on the history of it, the impact
 * The content is not really up to date, the most recent source is from 2017. There are also only 3 sources, which is not enough to have properly researched the info and topic.

Tone and Balance


 * The article is neutral, but there really is not a lot of info for the editors to be biased about
 * There are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward one position or another
 * No viewpoints are being overrepresented or underrepresented and its not trying to persuade the reader of anything.
 * It really just states the facts of the different locations of these museums and how some of them started

Sources and References


 * Not all of the sources are backed up by reliable sources
 * There are only 3 sources listed and even though there is not a lot of info, there should still be cross-references and there are none with this article
 * The sources are also not current as the most recent on is from 2017 and the other ones are from 2007 and 2009. They are not super recent
 * The sources are not thorough enough either, not showing a diverse research approach
 * All of the source links are working
 * Some of the info within the article is not sourced however, this happens multiple times throughout the article

Organization and Writing Quality


 * For the most part, the article is concise and clearly written
 * There are no spelling or grammatical issues within the article
 * For the most part the article is well organized. I just think that it is missing parts and topics, like the history or the context of these museums

Images and Media


 * There are a good amount of images for the length of the article, they included 3
 * The images are relatively helpful for the article and the audience
 * They are also laid out in a visually appealing way

Talk Page Discussion


 * There is a very short talk page, with very little discussion happening
 * The only suggestion made was to merge the article with "Cabinet of Curiosities"
 * The article is not rated
 * The article is part of a wikiproject with Museums and The United States

Overall Impression


 * Overall, the strengths of this article were that they concise with content and it is generally well written
 * The article can be improved by adding more content that could be beneficial to the article. It also could use more up to date sources and well as more sources in general
 * I feel as though the article is underdeveloped and could use more work, like adding content, adding sources