User:Rachael thompson/Evaluate an Article

Musicology
I have chosen this article to evaluate because my major at the University of Massachusetts Lowell is Sound Recording Technology; this is one of their many music majors offered.

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The Lead does in fact include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article topic of Musicology.
 * There is a brief and informative description of the major sections the article covers.
 * There is no extra information in the description that is not present in the article, however there is information in the article that is not talked about in the description.
 * The summary is concise- it has enough information to give a brief description while not being overly detailed.


 * 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
 * Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic of Musicology.
 * Most of the content has been found through resources that date more than eight years ago or more. The content should be evaluated with more up-to-date resources to make sure all of the information is correct and up-to-date.
 * There seems to be information missing because some subtopics mentioned in the description at the top of the page aren't covered in the article.
 * The article is written with no bias, but it does address topics that may not be the most popular to research about.


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

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes the article is neutral; no bias was found.
 * There are no claims that show heavy bias towards any particular position.
 * There are two subtopics that don't have as much information as the other subtopics do.
 * There is no persuasion in the article, only facts and information.


 * 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
 * Yes all of the facts are backed up by a source of information
 * Yes all of the sources reflect available literature on the topic of musicology.
 * Some of the sources aren't current, but that is because the information was found in dictionaries published many years.
 * Yes, each source is written by a different author. Some authors are musicologists themselves.
 * Yes, the links do work.


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

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article does have a few bumps here and there when reading, but overall the article is well written.
 * There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I had found.
 * Yes the article is well organized, with each subtopic having it's own section.


 * 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
 * There are only two images in the article and they are of musicologists.
 * The first picture has a discrete caption, but the other picture has a well written caption.
 * It seems like the first picture isn't cited, but the second picture is.
 * The images are very small and placed off to the side of the text. They don't draw too much attention towards them.


 * 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
 * There aren't any conversations taking place in the talk page. There are only three posts about why people changed things and one reply saying musicology is awesome and why that person believes so.
 * The article has a rating of level-5 vital article which falls under the start-class rating. This means it is no where near complete and needs many revisions done to it. It is apart of one WikiProject: the WikiProject Classical Music and WikiProject Philosophy.
 * This topic is very low on the importance scale and because of that, it has not been talked about in class.


 * 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
 * Its status is low importance.
 * The strengths with this article include many recent improvements in the past two years.
 * The article can be improved by adding more up-to-date information and more pictures.
 * This article is poorly developed and needs a lot more information added to it.


 * 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: