User:RJRP96/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: Talk:Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article because I am an animal lover and I don't think dog fighting is right at all.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

It does include an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

It does include a brief description of the article's major sections


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

All information included in Lead is present throughout article


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead is overly detailed, needs to be shortend

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

The article's content is relevant to the topic


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Content is up-to-date


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Some content in the Lead and throughout can be removed as some is repeated or some details that are not major which can be removed


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No the article does not deal with equity gaps

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

For the most part, others want to include how dog-fighting is taken in their own country


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Yes there are


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Yes there are


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Facts from all points of view

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Yes, sources such as CNN and ESPN just to name a couple


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes


 * Are the sources current?

Yes they are


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, sources come from all over


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, most of them do, however, some do not

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, the article is well-written, concise, and clear.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

A few but not many


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is very well organized, and is broken down into separate sections

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Article only has 1 image


 * Are images well-captioned?

The one image that is included is well-captioned


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Conversation are going on behind the scenes on the talk page regarding information in the lead, tone throughout the article, and bias or unbiased information. Much discussion on the talk page


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is rated in the C-class, meaning it is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Does not differ much, information comes from all sides

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

The article still exists on wikipedia, but is not being edited much anymore as it is an older article, from 2007.


 * What are the article's strengths?

Clear and concise information, unbiased for the most part, well organized and broken down into appropriate secitons


 * How can the article be improved?

The information in some sections of the article could be paraphrased a little bit more, somewhat of an overload of information that needs to be shortened


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

This article is well-developed for the most part

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: