User:Rachel-upj/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: Mark Zug
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article because I frequently play the card game Magic: The Gathering for which Mark Zug is an illustrator.

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
The lead contains an introductory sentence, though it is short and not very descriptive.

The lead only contains two sentences, and does not clearly give an overview of the other sections of the article.

All of the information in the lead is present elsewhere in the article as well.

The lead is very brief, definitely not overly detailed. If anything, it could be a little more detailed.

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
The content is relevant. Everything in the article pertains to Mark Zug, his work, and his life.

It appears that the content has not been updated in several years, but that could be because nothing of significance has happened since then.

All of the content included belongs. There isn't much information about the Magic: The Gathering cards he has illustrated, but there is some information on other works that he has done.

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 neutral.

There are no heavily biased claims.

There are no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints.

There is no persuasion.

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
Most claims are, though some require citations.

There are only 10 sources. It seems likely that there are more.

The sources are not current. The most recent is from several years ago.

The links work.

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 writing is okay. The information that is given is presented pretty clearly.

There are no glaring grammatical or spelling errors, but the writing is lacking stylistically in some sections.

The provided sections make sense and are in an order that makes sense, but they could be developed more (and there could possibly be more sections).

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 are no images.

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 is only one item on the Talk page. It is about modifying external links.

It is rated as a C-class.

We have not discussed this topic in class.

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 article is in mediocre shape. It's not bad; it's not good.

The article's strengths are that it is unbiased and the information presented all pertains to the subject.

The article could be included by including more information and expanding on some of the topics already present. It could also benefit form including some images. The current sections could also be edited stylistically.

I would say that the article can be considered complete but underdeveloped. It "gets the job done" as far as giving an overview of the subject, but it could definitely have more information.

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: