User:Mrdoyle1988/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: Talk:Piano
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this page because I have played the piano since I was a small child and will enjoy learning more about the instrument by researching, developing and editing this page. I also felt that writing about a specific object such as a musical instrument would allow me to easily be able to avoid sharing opinion, and stick with facts.

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 but it appears that some are missing.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly Detailed

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes - the latest update was in April of 2020 and the information is current and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article is quite large and includes a vast amount of information.  I might consider removing the parts about "Playing and Technique" and simply provide a link to another Wikipedia page on playing the instrument.  It would make this article more organized to only include information on the actual musical instrument and shorten the article a bit to make it more manageable.

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? There is quite a bit more information on modern day pianos vs early pianos.
 * 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? No - Right at the start of the article, the first entire paragraph is missing a citation. Throughout the remainder of the page there are numerous large sections of text and facts missing citations.  It appears the notes section is notated similar to how the citations should be.  There are many areas missing both a note or a citation.  The citations could use lots of work on this article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Of the group of cited works, a good amount of information on the piano has been collected.  I do feel the sources are thorough, however, they're not properly documented throughout the work.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I clicked 10 links.  Of the 10 I clicked, only one didn't work.  It still took me to a site but the site appeared to be in foreign language and I'm not sure it was the proper site.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The length of the article could use work.  For someone coming to get a basic understanding of the musical instrument, I feel the length of this page is a bit overwhelming.  I think by condensing the information down a bit, the article could be greatly improved.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I might consider changing "coulors" and "splendour" depending on the context and audience otherwise I did not find any spelling errors.  Aside from re-wording to condense the article, I also did not find grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes but it appears they're not cited.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe no since they're missing citations and would infringe on copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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 is a large communication about the citations and issues with those.  There are also a few other topics as well as a question posed about the contents of the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is a C-Class article.  It is part of "Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team/v0.7", "WikiProject Musical Instruments" and "WikiProject Percussion"
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is classified as a Level 4 Vital Article.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article contains a huge amount of information relevant to learning about the piano.  It starts from the beginning when they were created and takes you through modern day instruments.  The detail included paints a full picture of the musical instrument.
 * How can the article be improved? Though the amount of detail gives a great picture of the instrument, I feel it can be fine tuned and shortened up a bit while still providing lots of details about the piano.  By shortening up the wording, you allow the reader to gain a great deal of knowledge while not overwhelming them with a huge amount of reading and fluff.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Overall, I feel the article is fairly complete.  With a few minor edits to be more precise, the article will provide a full spectrum of information about the piano while keeping the reader engaged.

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: