User:Sakare2000/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: Boy Meets Boy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because I immediately saw a lot of room for improvement in terms of the article's grammar and writing style. I also noticed that there were several requests for clarification from other Wikipedia users.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -- Yes, but I think it could be done better.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -- No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -- No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? -- It is concise but worded in an awkward way.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? -- Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? -- Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -- No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? -- Yes, it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -- No claims about bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -- No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -- No, the article is neutral.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -- No. Most claims in the article do not have citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? -- No. There are many more available sources that could be used to build upon this article.
 * Are the sources current? -- There are only three sources and all are at least 10 years old.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? -- Some links do not work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -- No, it is not well-written in my opinion.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? -- No evident spelling errors but there are issues with grammar.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -- No. Some sections are unnecessary.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? -- Yes, a picture of the book is included.
 * Are images well-captioned? -- The image does not have a caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No. The image says fair use but does not elaborate at all why the image is fair use.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? -- Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? -- There is very little discussion going on in the talk page. With only two comments, one about fair use and the other one about the length of the summary.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? -- There is no rating but it is a part of 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? -- It definitely needs work.
 * What are the article's strengths? -- Detailed summary. Includes awards, etc.
 * How can the article be improved? -- The plot summary needs to be cut down and rewritten. Controversies surrounding the book also need to be addressed.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Poorly developed but not underdeveloped.
 * Overall evaluation
 * Overall evaluation

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: