User:Msel20/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: Creative Commons license
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate I chose this article to understand further about Creative Commons. We talked about Creative Commons in class, and I want to know more about it and curious what Wikipedia has to say about it.

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 lead include introductory sentences that clearly explain what Creative Commons is. It gives short example that helps people understand better if they never heard about it before. It also describe short history of Creative Commons which I found not overwhelming. Not all the sections are mentioned/described in the lead, but there is no information that is not presented in the article appeared in the lead section.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is very relevant to the topic, but just think that the legal aspect should not be that detail. The content is up-to date since it also has retired licenses part which no longer being used.

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
The article is generally very neutral. It does not persuade me to think about one/ the other.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information shown by just how many outside resources presented on the external link part. The three columns make it easy to read and understand. I checked couple of sources and they all work fine.

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
The article is well written, easy, and clear to understand. For me, the non English native, I can follow the article well enough.

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 images on the article enhance my understanding about the topic and all of them are well-captioned. Since it is colorful, it makes it more appealing to the readers.

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
The talk page covers very broad topics. Its not about one particular topic that people argues about but it is about every different section of the article. This makes me realized just how thorough people are working on the article. This article is related to WikiProject.

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
Overall, I feel like this article is very good, concise, and clear. The article is well-developed, especially by including graphs and tables on the article make it not boring and easy to understand.

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: