User:RyanBowen1911/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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock?action=edit
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Military articles/stories have always interested me and Carlos is from little rock which is even more interesting for me because I live close to little rock.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes. The lead of the article sets the stage for the rest of the article, introducing carlos hathcock and his accomplishments in the marine corps.

No. The lead doesn't cover the major sections of the article.

The lead mentions a rifle being named after him however it is not verified in the rest of the article.

Yes. The lead is concise and provides information relevant to the article


 * 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. all content is related to carlos hathcock

for the most part it is up to date I found a new article on him that the article that I am reviewing does not make mention of.

all information seems to be relavent


 * 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

yes it does not seem to be biased

it is not biased, it just details events that occurred in his lifetime.

no there are not it seems to cover everything equally the article kind of leans towards war, however I do not believe that it is persuasive to war.


 * 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

most of the facts are backed by a secondary source

yes the sources are thorough and are covered by sources that seem to be credible

yes they are

yes all of the links 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

yes all the topics are clear and easy to read

"Although suffering from severe burns to his face, trunk, and arms and legs" I think the word "trunk" should not be used but that could just be my interpretation

yes the article is well organized


 * 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


 * 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


 * 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


 * 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: