User:Rosasandrew/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: Washington Haggadah
 * I have chosen this article because it is the one i will be doing my wiki page edit on for class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead is not clear enough for the reader to understand what it is without further research on the topic. the Lead also does not have clear sections to properly support a breakdown of more detailed information on the topic.


 * 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 current information on the topic in the article is relevant to the subject. The content is up to date but there can still be plenty more information added.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article remains neutral, there are no opinionated claims, the main subject which is the illuminated manuscript however is underrepresented in terms of description.


 * 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

There could have been a lot more information posted about the topic but the sources used are reliable.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is somewhat organized, however it lacks content and substance to be


 * 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

the article includes one image that does give some context as to the subject of the article. the caption is good but needs a few more details added to make it better and more useful to the reader.


 * 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

Basically, describing what the illuminated manuscript is is one thing, but representing it as its own unique manuscript is a different task. there's a history to this specific manuscript that needs to be addressed as well as the history of the author, and its place of storage/current state.


 * 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

The article is short, needs more facts added, a history and proper description, and related topics like the author and culture from which it came.


 * 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:

Rosasandrew~