User:Shareblaw/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Of Mice and Men

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Class Project

Evaluate the article
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? Yes

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? No

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

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? No Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Is the article neutral? Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? I wouldn't say there were too many minority or fringe viewpoints that were presented in the first place.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, there is almost no noticeable bias.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. There is one missing citation under the "Film" Section

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Or at least they reflect easily accessible literature on the topic.

Are the sources current? No, but many of the sources were "retrieved" pretty recently.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes, there are people of many different backgrounds (at least from what I can tell on their pages.)

Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not really. But admittedly, there isn't much to work with.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Not really

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes but there are only a few (for example, I'm pretty sure there's a misplaced comma in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Reception section.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but there are only two.

Are images well-captioned? Yes.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No. But to be fair, the images aren't great material to work with.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are many different discussions since it is such a popular topic

How is the article rated? "B-Class"

Is it a part of any WikiProjects? WikiProjects Novels, WikiProjects California

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Although they do some of the specific “Wikipedia Lingo”, they primarily speak in language that anyone could understand.

What is the article's overall status? B-Class, High Importance and overall pretty healthy.

What are the article's strengths? The article has a lot of sources and there is plenty of variety in terms of the sources.

How can the article be improved? Maybe by adding more pictures, cleaning up a few grammatical errors and by linking a few more things

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is very well-developed. It has pretty thoroughly been looked at by many people and there doesn’t seem to be much else that people have to add judging based off of the Talk Pages and the times from which the sources come from. The only really poorly developed aspects were the visuals and grammar.