User:Rznemo/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.


 * Red herring: Red herring
 * I chose this article to evaluate because I know a little bit about the topic but I wanted to know more and I thought it would be interesting.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead mentions the article's major sections, and has a brief description for most of them, with summaries of the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead has summarized points that are expanded on later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, it is only a few sentences long.

Lead evaluation
The lead is very concise, with only a few sentences, but it includes an introductory sentence that accurately describes the topic, and mentions the articles major sections, with brief summaries of each. The lead does not contain any information that is not present in the article, and has summarized points that are expanded on later in the article.

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

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. The article does include information about the food "red herring" which isn't what the article is really about, but I think that it is a useful backstory that helps give context. The article does include a lot of examples to explain the idea of a "red herring," i think these examples are useful but they might be better supported with more explanation.

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, the article does not attempt to persuade the reader. An example of this neutrality is when the article explains the history of the phrase, it gives many possible orgins and the arguments from all sides of what the actual origin could be, but does not come to a conclusion of which one is correct.

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?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, there are numerous citations and references, more than one in every paragraph. The sources are mostly current, the most recent source is from 2017, and the oldest one is from 1976 (not including the original references from the origin). The sources support the article, and come from a diverse spectrum of authors.

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 article is well-written, it is relatively easy to read, with no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is pretty well-organized. It is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic, there aren't too many or too little sections. The lack of errors and well thought out sections make this easy to read and understand.

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
The article includes two images. The first one, from a mystery story with people examining a red herring, definitely enhances the understanding of the topic. The second one, a picture of the food "red herring" isn't as useful because this article is not about the food, but instead the idiom; I think this image could be replaced to better suit the article. The images are well captioned, with adequate descriptions and explanations. All the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, the first image is old enough to fall into public domain, and the second image comes from flickr and is allowed to be used as long as it is credited, which it is. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way, with each image next to corresponding text.

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
The main conversation about this topic is about the best image to use to represent the topic. Users have debated whether an image of the food red herring or kipper is appropriate given the article is about the idiom not the food.

The article is rated c-class. It is a part of multiple WikiProjects, which are: Linguistics / Etymology, Literature, and Philosophy.

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's overall status is that it is quite good, it has a lot of relevant information which is presented neutrally and organized well. The article's strengths are its organization, the history section which has a lot of information and shows the different ideas about the history. The article could be improved by using more explanation and not just examples, and by reevaluating some of the images and explanations about the food, which the article isn't about. The article is developed nicely, there are a few parts that might be benefitted by developing more, but it is overall satisfactory.

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: