User:MikaylaS2000/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: Auditory illusion
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because it really only has more basic and general information regarding auditory illusions. I plan to edit it and add more specific information.

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 introductory sentence is concise and is not overly detailed. The lead includes the article's main sections and doesn't include any extra information that is not present in the article. ====

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's content is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. I think that a more in-depth description of auditory illusions is missing, but it does have a more general description. None of the information listed seems to really be out of place within the article; I don't plan to remove any information, I just plan to add information. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. ====

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: This article is neutral, as it doesn't pertain to a controversial topic. There is not an apparent bias present in this article, nor are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. This article merely relates the facts and information regarding auditory illusions and doesn't list opinions, thus, there isn't any sides to be picked or persuasion to be used. ====

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: All of the facts are sited and most of them come from a reliable source (a few of the sources are from websites that end in .com). The sources used are thorough, though I definitely found some more sources available to add more content. The sources are all relatively current and there seems to be a diverse spectrum of authors. The links that I tested all worked as well. ====

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: I think that this article is fairly well-written and easy to read and comprehend. It doesn't appear to have any spelling or grammatical errors. The article is fairly well organized and is broken down into sections that co-inside with the Lead provided. ====

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 article itself does not include images, but it provides links for examples of auditory illusions. Of course, the topic of auditory illusion can't really be demonstrated with just a picture. ====

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: Some of the conversation on the talk page is discussion between some of the different types of auditory illusions, as well as some people have provided more sources regarding information on the topic. It is apart of WikiProject Pyschology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance), WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance), and WikiProject Medicine / Neurology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance). In class we have gone much more in depth on the topic, as the talk page for auditory illusions is mostly just people debating The Doppler Effect and whether or not it is actually an illusion. ====

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: I think that the status of this article would be pretty good. It has good content, it just needs more depth to it. The strengths for this article include lots of examples and a good structure. Improvements for this article include more content and more reliable sources. I think that this article is pretty well-developed, it just needs a little bit of tweaking. ====

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: