User:Seanhov/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:Equal-loudness contour
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because I have learned about it in class and I also have included some of the equal-loudness contour information in my research.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, I clearly know what the topic is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a content section that talks about what is all included in this section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, there is no information that the lead does not include. However, there is citations that no longer work which is concerning.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is short but gives detailed information on the topic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, they included new information from 2003 about a revision of the contours. However, I did not learn about this revision in school and there the citations that talk about this no longer work.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Brief information about Fletcher and Munson could be implemented but other then that it is has the right amount of content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I am not sure on this.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? They say it is now better to use a certain term which is not neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? They rely heavily on this new information by ISO which I have not heard of so I am not sure how important this new information is considering Fletcher and Munsons graphs are so accurate.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints are represented fine and adequately.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I feel like it is persuading me to look at the new curves but they are the same as the old curves so I am not sure. Maybe there should be a graph that includes the small differences between the contours.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, some articles no longer work which is not good.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There should be more citations on side versus frontal presentation and they include information from sources that were proved to be wrong which is not good.
 * Are the sources current? They are as current as possible.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes they do.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No some links do not work but the pdf does.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is not bad but it includes information from researchers that were found to be inaccurate and also includes research that is similar to the older research.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? not that I am aware of.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think the information about A-weighting curves should be higher as this is pretty relevant to the equal loudness contours.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but it should include more images.
 * Are images well-captioned? Well enough
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I think so? I am not sure on this.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There is only two images of basically the same thing. There could be more images based on the information they talked about.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Talked about not liking certain statements on the article and how it needs to be changed.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-Class and it is with professional sound production and physics.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Does not really differ at all in my opinion.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article was not bad, but I do think it could be changed or improved.
 * What are the article's strengths? They discuss the fletcher and munson curves well and information on the experimental determination.
 * How can the article be improved? To not include information that is proven wrong and to give better citations on the recent revisions of the contours.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is 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: