User:Pikapenn/sandbox

Keshon Penn Com 232 Professor Mandiberg 12/05/19  Article Evaluation •	Article: [Nancy Skolos ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Skolos

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 Yes, it tells about the person but only in one sentence. No, the major talking points aren’t represented throughout the wiki article. Yes, there information that is information missing. 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 Yes, but it defiantly needs more. But the information is centered on the person. Not really, the most up to date reference is from 2015. Yes, early life is missing & awards are missing if any were won. 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 very neutral, just stating facts about the person. No, not at all. The beginning claim is very weak, and can be stronger and develop more. 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 No, they are lacking the information to back the article. The sources could be more thorough or use more support. No, the sources of current to year to date, but are within the last 5 years. Yes, the link function how they should be. 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 easy to read and clear. But it is lacking material to make it a strong article. The article has no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is not organized that well, it seems very empty, with no pictures or detailed information. 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 None at all. No images. No. No. 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 Wiki-Projects? How does the way Wikipedia discuss this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Talk page evaluation I see no conversations currently. No. It just states basic information, without going into detail. 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 The articles overall status is incomplete with errors. Strengths: Article has a decent start, more can be added. Could be improved by adding more information, with references and expanding on the lead. The article isn’t well developed. The article is underdeveloped. It has some good bones to work off of, just needs more material to support itself. Pikapenn (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)