User:Quiltenthusiast/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: JSTOR
 * JSTOR is a database that I have used many times to find information and I am curious to see what Wikipedia editors have to say about it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead includes an initial sentence that describes what the article is about and includes pertinent information about when it was founded and what JSTOR is. Links were provided, but there was a citation needed stamp associated with the longer name of the database.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not include any information about what will be covered in the article body, it only deals with trivial about the usage of the database, subscriptions, and information about the contents. It does not go any further in detail.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There is no information present in the lead that is not referenced in the body of the article in one way or another.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead could be shorter and more to the point, as the figures referenced in the lead are mentioned in the body if not directly, indirectly.

Lead evaluation
The lead for this article is well done. It starts out good, by directly mentioning what the subject is and where is originated. It could be shorter and more to the point, there is no real need for some of the figures and facts in the lead,as they are mentioned in much more detail later on in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content of the article is very relevant to the topic of the article, it is focused on the topic and does not stray unnecessarily.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The data and figures used are several years old, if possible there could be more recent ones added to clarify.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * JSTOR has a unique search system and thesaurus system that could be added to the content of the article.

Content evaluation
The content is good, it covers the salient points about the database, its history, content and access information and issues that have arisen in the past. It also mentions gender inequality in scholarly publishing and its daily use.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * There is not any obvious bias present in the evaluation of the topic in the article. When discussing access, there was consideration for issues with subscription access to JSTOR. There was not consideration for possible benefits to it.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There were no points that appeared particularly biased to a particular position, however the access section was focused more on issues and providing more access to it.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * To me there was not a viewpoint that was over-represented, but there could be more information about scholarly publishing.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone and balance of this article is good. There were no glaring flaws, but some subjects could be touched on more equally.

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
Several of the links were broken, particularly the ones that link back to JSTOR and information about them personally. The sources are fairly through, but I would prefer to see evaluations of the database from scholarly sources, and more information about the database than just what they printed. As stated earlier, several of the links are broken, and some of the figures mentioned in the body of the article are several years old as well. Overall the article is well backed up by sources of information, however many of them are JSTOR themselves as a source of information.

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 well written and does not contain obvious grammar or spelling mistakes. The organization is good and follows a logical progression and includes subheadings.

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
There is only one image, and it is a screenshot of the logo.

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?

Talk page evaluation
There have been several conversations present on the talk page. There was a lot of debate on the placement of the image, either left or right, as well as controversy around the inclusion of information about Aaron Swartz. The article is considered a "former good article nominee". It is also of interest to several WikiProjects including: WikiProject Libraries, WikiProject Academic Journals, WikiProject Open Access, and WikiProject Open. This not necessarily a topic we have covered in class, but it is tangentially related to course content, including issues of access, scholarship and gender disparities and that is only covered better in some ways than in others.

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 overall status of the article is as a former good article nominee. It is well cited, but there could be more information about the database itself and how it functions internally. The article is well-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: