User:Minigun Man/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: Appeal to ridicule
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The week where we studied rhetorical strategies and fallacies was the one I found the most interesting so far. So, when WikiEdu presented me with the list of stub articles to choose from, I made sure to pick ones within that topic.

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?
 * No (no sections)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Closer to concise than overly detailed, but felt a bit long

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Only one source, a book from 2000. I would say no
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there is not a lot of content in general.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The only source was a book, so I couldn't check to see how reliable it was
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are the sources current?
 * No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I don't think so.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, a little too concise though. And it could have been a little more clear by including examples but I got the gist of it
 * 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?
 * No, no sections at all

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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There's pretty much nothing
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Stub-class on WikiProject Philospophy, Politics, Psychology, and Sociology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In class, when we were discussing different fallacies, we created detailed explanations and examples for each one we were discussing, even providing a picture or video. We also had a chart provided with the different types, and again, got examples. This article lists no examples, and contains no pictures, videos, or other media.

Talk page evaluation
There's next-to-nothing there

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Definitely deserving of "stub status
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The lead isn't awful
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Pretty much everything else
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Pretty underdeveloped

Overall evaluation
Everything falls off after the lead. Too short and not detailed enough for me.

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: