User:Purplepenguink/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Bob Marley Museum Article.

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have always been a big Bob Marley fan and never realized there was a Museum dedicated to him, which led me to this Article. However, when I reached the article there was not a lot of information about the place, or anything inside. The article only had a small paragraph of a brief explanation, and thus I think that it needs some work. My first impression was disappointment as I did not get as much information as I had hoped.

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The lead sentence is short and concise that provides a clear understanding of what the article is about.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. The lead does not include a brief description of the articles major sections. There are no other major sections.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No. the lead does not include any other information from the article.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and not overly detailed. It provides a short explanation of the topic of the article. Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The articles content is relevant to the topic. Though, there is not enough content to give a detailed explanation.

Is the content up-to-date? The content is up-to-date with information, but I believe that it should have a lot more.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is a lot of content missing. For example: it does not give a detailed explanation of things that can be found in the museum: including artifacts or other information. I think that even museum hours could be helpful on this page.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not necessarily. The article focuses on a Black artist, but does not necessarily focus on his biography. Tone and Balance Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral? The article is neutral with no opinions. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No biases are found in the article.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are no viewpoints that are overrespresented or underrepresented.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. There is no persuasion in this article.

Sources and References A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is a secondary source of information in the article.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No. The source is just a small paragraph, similar to the wikipedia article.

Are the sources current? The source is fairly current, but could be newer.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) No. The source was not peer reviewed.

Check a few links. Do they work? The link did not work.

Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is clear and concise but requires more sections.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no spelling or grammatical errors. Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are no sections: needs more information.

Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one image of the topic, but I think that there should be more of the exhibits that are found on the inside.

Are images well-captioned? The image was well-captioned and described where the location was.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No. There is only one image on the far right. The page could use more illustrations.

Talk page discussion The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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 This article is not part of wikiprojsects it is part of the academic disciplines. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Yes. The way that this is discussed is incorrect and should be more detailed. Overall impressions What is the article's overall status? I think that this article should be edited more, and should be detailed as far as the information that is displayed about the museum.

What are the article's strengths? The article is short and concise with a clear understanding of what the topic is about.

How can the article be improved? The article needs more information with sections about what is in the museum and the artifacts that we can find. Further, I think that more information about general hours could be improved. How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?