User:ShonteDS/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: Riverdale (2017 TV series)
 * This article is located under Communications Category: Television Series About Journalists, and it relates to my class as it depicts writing in digital media as television show. It is easy to research sources for information on the topi9c of the article, including Netflix.

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
Although the Lead is concise with a brief description of the articles major sections which are all represented in the article, the introductory sentence lacks information about what the series is truly about.

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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic; however, it is not up-to-date as it does not include all of the information related to all episode of Season 4. Season is an incomplete list. At first glanse, the article seems to be simply out-of-date; however, there are mentiosn in the article of a fifth season that will premiere in January 2021, so there is simply missing content about all of the seasons.

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 in tone; however the basis of the series on the Archie Comics series is overrepresented. Overall, the article does a good job at not attempting to persuade the reader; it's overall job of simply educating the reader of the criticisms that the show has received is accomplished.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links in the article work, and the sources provided support the information given in the article. The article is properly supported with multiple links and sources that reflect the criticisms received, which contributes to the articles neutral and unbiased tone. The sources provided simply support the information given, although the sources themselves seem a bit biased in their criticism since they are reviewing only Season 1 and none of the subsequent seasons.

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 broken down into easy to follow sections that easily flow together. However, the article starts very broad and narrows into specifics. It would be better served for a digital writing media to be concise in the beginning then provide supported info. Each section however is organized in the inverted pyramid, with concise statements followed by supported evidence.

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
There are only two images included in the article. Although the articles are well captioned and adhere to copyright regulations, they do not properly enhance the understanding of the topic. The article does not include in images of the TV series itself, which would enhance the flow and appeal of the article if included. Overall, the article includes several tables for comparisons of reviews, which adds enough substance to the article.

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 talk page includes conversations about details that are missing and out-of-date, as well as information that is poorly supported. It also mentions a possible bias in the reviews and criticisms on the series. It is mentioned that the reviews listed in the article only reflect the feedback for Season 1, but doesn't include any feedback for the remaining seasons. It mentions possibly related WikiProjects, but the article is not a part of any of these projects.

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
This article is active, with the last update completed in June of 2020. Overall, the article is has a lot of background information and history of the topic. It also included current views and criticisms of the topic with well supported sources and links. However, the article is incomplete as it is missing information about Season 4 Episodes and events. Although well-developed, it is underdeveloped due to incomplete information.

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: