User:Sihern Han/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: Atlanta murders of 1979–1981 (Atlanta murders of 1979–1981)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:
 * I chose this article because it is a C-class article about an interesting topic. This topic was also addressed in the show Mind Hunters, which I watch.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The Lead includes an introductory sentence that quite plainly, but still concisely and clearly describes the article's topic (the Atlanta Murders of 1979-1981) as a series of murders that happened in Atlanta between 1979 and 1981.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections, but it does not correspond completely with the contents table.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The part about the killings stopping after Williams's arrest in the Lead was not included in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise. It briefly summarizes the main details of the case without delving into the detail so much that the article's body becomes repetitive.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic. The article seems to do a pretty good job of addressing all the pertinent information to a series of murders.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date. There are sources dating all the way back to 1982 but the sources are mostly from the last 10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content seems to be pretty relevant. The only content that is questionable is the media coverage and adaptations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral. There are no value statements given.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article does not appear to have viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The entire article seems to be absent of value statements that may bias readers. The article is written in a very matter of fact manner.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The article's facts are backed by a long list of sources that are mostly news articles (which are secondary sources).
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are mostly news articles but for the article topic it makes sense and reflects the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well written.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article's organization is clear and logical. It starts with a timeline of the Atlanta murders before going into the process of capturing, trying, and convicting the suspect, then ending with a list of victims. Although the media coverage and adaptations section seems somewhat unnecessary, it's placement at the end makes it better.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article contains just two images, only one of which (the photo of the suspect) enhances understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are well captioned, although the images themselves limits the positive effect.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are placed on the right hand side of the article. It is not particularly visually appealing, but it does the job.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Although the Talk Page included conversations about properly functioning URLs and a misreading of an article, the most interesting conversation is about the article's omission of the topic of issues that people had with Wayne Williams's trial and conviction. Although one person seemed to think that the article's omission of this was detrimental to the article, others decided that including this topic in the article would go against the policy on due weight and fringe views.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated C-Class. It is part of the following 3 WikiProjects: Georgia/Atlanta, Crime, and Serial Killer task force.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Question unclear.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article is currently a C-class article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths include clear and concise writing, a logical and clear structure, and a lack of bias.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * At the top of the page, it says that the article needs additional citations for verification. More citations could be added to strengthen the validity of the article. More pictures could also help as well.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seems to be pretty complete. The content is there and the article is well developed. It seems that more pictures, sources, and a better organization of the writing (less blocks of text, less bullet points) would make this article even better.

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: