User:Nhyman22/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.


 * Geography: Geography
 * I'm interested in the concept of geography, and I just randomly found it on the Wikipedia main page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

This is a great example of a lead. It gives. brief definition of the topic and its origins. I think the second paragraph about it when it was first mentioned might make more sense in the history section.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

This page has good content, all relevant. Seems to be up to date as well. Also, I like their inclusion of the entire evolution and history of geography. It is missing a section on discoveries made in the field of geography, however.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * I believe that this article is neutral. It seems like a very good description of what geography is without any broad claims about it being one way or another.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * I clicked one of the links and got sent to someone's random blog site . . . though they had a PhD, it seemed kind of unofficial. Seems there are a few of these instances, but also intermingled with books that can't be accessed.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes


 * 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
 * Seems to mostly focus on the physical portion of geography rather than the human portion. Could have more pictures of human geography.


 * 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
 * Seems like lots of people commenting on the article but not knowing the format through which to make changes.


 * 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
 * I think it gives a good and brief overview into geography. I think to compare it to other discipline pages would be good. Maybe a list of places doing geographical work, or a list of works about geography.


 * 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: