User:SeanCorgiKim/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.


 * Death
 * I just find interesting that there is so many interpretations of death and how there is so many different ways people deal/ handle with it.

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
an excellent job doing what its supposed to do. It provides a brief introduction that clearly describes what the article entails. It is concise and only provides information that is relative to the article.


 * 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 content in this article is relevant to the topic as it talks about everything from different religions dealing with it and causes of it. It's kind of updated. Last time it was edited was somewhere in 2019. I don't see anything that seems out of content. I also don't see anything that talks about equity gaps. It doesn't bring up racial minorities or the any differences between sexes.

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
This article is does a nice job staying  neutral. It doesn't take any sides or attempt to persuade the reader into thinking or feeling anything. It just informs the reader about many topics of death and doesn't try to take any sides.

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
There are a lot of people working on it and doing wiki projects so that would lead me to believe that it is reliable. The sources after clicking through and reading some do seem to provide a lot more information if you do want to read more about it. However some of them are a little old (2012)

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 as it is very concise and easy to understand. The article is very organized and does a great job going into some depth about a very grey area 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article does provide nice images about various topics about depth which leads me to believe they add to the experience. They are well captioned and do seem to adhere to copyright regulations.

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 are just a few conversations going on with people just providing there own opinion over some areas of the artilce. The article is rated c, and is part of many wiki projects. This shows that much more can still be done on this artilce.

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
I mean in my opinion the article's status looked good to me but the rating wasn't as good as I expected. I feel like one of the strengths of the article was diving into the the complicated gray area of death that we discussed in class earlier., which shows to me a level of sophistication. One way to improve would be to maybe just to add a lot more information/ explanation where it seems lacking. I would say that it is pretty developed but as the potential to go even higher

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: