User:NOAHSTEiiN/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: 7 World Trade Center
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. :~-- I have chosen to evaluate this article because I consider myself to be a patriot of my country, however I do not know much about why World Trade Center 7 collapsed as well on September 11th, 2001. The North and South Tower collapsed due to the terrorist attacks but not World Trade Center 7. It has always left me curious on why it collapsed.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? :~-- The article does clearly state the topic about WTC 7.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? :~-- Yes, the article gives a description about how WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11 due to complications involving the terrorist attacks on the North and South Towers.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? :~--- No, the article does not include information that was not present in the Lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? :~-- The article is concise!

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? :~-- The article's topic is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? :~-- Yes, the last edit was in 2011.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? :~-- No there is nothing missing that I can see nor is there anything 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? :~-- From my understanding of Equity Gaps of Wiki along with underrepresented populations, the article does not deal with either of the two.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? :~-- The article is 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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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: