User:NK560/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: The LaSallian
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate

Lead
The lead is nice and concise. It provides a very good but not too detailed overview of the article. There are some mentions of other things not relevant to the article but it isn't distracting or off-topic. It states what the publication is and where it is from and goes into its contents. The sentence that mentions the other publications of the university wasn't necessary but it also was not completely irrelevant. Given how specific the topic of the article is and the limited information available, it's an acceptable and appropriate lead

Content


It is up-to-date as far as I can tell, and the content is relevant to the topic. The majority of the content is about the history of the publication. It's a big list of important events that happened to the publication briefly summarized in one or a few sentences. There isn't a lot of content, but the content there is relevant and concise. There aren't many visuals or even paragraphs so the layout looks bare and very minimal, but there isn't much to say about the topic to begin with so it's acceptable. It wasn't aesthetically pleasing but it was informational.

Tone and Balance


The article is neutral and doesn't contain any biased language. It's pretty unbalanced in terms of section content because the "History" section is disproportionately lengthy compared to the other sections. The bulk of the article is the History section, and the rest of the content felt like it could have also been in the history section. It feels as if the 2 other sections were added just so that there could be more sections, but they don't really stand out as their own and are very small.

Sources and References


The biggest issue with the article is that there are no references or citations. It is severely lacking in verified sources. There are 3 related articles you could click on, such as the university the publication is from, but there are no external links and no citations. Everything on the page is not cited and there is no "References" section in the article at all. However, because the topic is so obscure and specific, it makes me feel as if I can trust the people that care enough to write the article make it as accurate as possible. Since it isn't a very popular article, the talk page is empty, and it's so obscure, there's no reason for the people to write the article to lie about anything. However, citations are still very important and should be there to ensure validity.

Organization


The article is very well-organized and easy to read. The paragraphs are concise and not unnecessarily lengthy. Each section is adequately spaced and doesn't look overwhelming or jumbled, but on the other end of the spectrum it is very bare. I think that the sections are unbaked and that the last two were a little unnecessary to have as their own sections. Maybe making the sections more specific would help with the disproportionate amount of content, as "history" is a very broad and vague topic.

Images and Media


There is only one picture and it was a little old, but it was relevant to the topic. I am not sure if it follows copyright regulations and there is no caption or citation for it. The image isn't very clear, so you can't read any of the smaller text, only the headlines. It is also pretty outdated so I feel like either they could change that one image to a more recent issue, or add more pictures of the different covers throughout the article. Due to the lack of visuals the article seemed pretty bland, but it isn't very long so it isn't too big of an issue.

Checking the talk page


The talk page is very empty. No one has posted on it. I figured that since the topic is so specific, and not a whole lot of people know or care about it enough to write an entire article about it, that the few people that were committed would've talked or interact more. Maybe all the contributors know each other personally and update the article together so there isn't need to have discussions about it in the talk page.

Overall impressions


The article definitely still needs work, but it is very organized and contains a lot of relevant information. The biggest thing it's lacking is sources, and it could stand to have more pictures and more balanced sections. But overall it's a decent article and gives the reader a good amount of information regarding the topic.

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: