User:Simplylil/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

1991 Austin yogurt shop killings

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

From the list of C quality articles for Wikiproject_Women, I was intrigued by the title of this article. I am really interested in forensics and true crime, and I was wondering how significant the setting (the yogurt shop) took place in the motivations behind the killings. My preliminary impression of the article was reading a true crime story.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

- The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.

- The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.

- Yes, the lead does include information that is not present in the article (it shouldn't).

- The lead is overly detailed, and some details should definitely be moved to "Killing" section.

Content

- The article's content in relevant to the topic.

- The content is up-to-date (includes subsequent events all the way until 2022).

- Content on victim's families could be considered missing, but there is no content in the article that doesn't belong.

- The article does deal with one of Wikipedia's common equity gaps of women. It addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics as four teenage-women were murdered and has been left a cold case.

Tone and Balance

- The article is neutral (I think so).

- No claims are heavily biased toward a particular position.

- No viewpoints are overrepresented, but I do think viewpoints from victim's families are not discussed at all and could be.

- No minority or fringe viewpoints are described.

- The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from the other- it's pretty neutral.

Sources and References

- Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. Some pages cannot be found when clicked to the link, and others are from news sources.

- The sources that are available are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.

- Most sources are not current, but the sources that discuss the recent subsequent events are current.

- Can't say too much on this because most of the sources are written by "associated press," but the ones that do specify an author are mainly Caucasian.

- The answer should be yes, there are better sources available, but I personally don't think there is much because the murder curse is left unresolved for a reason- not enough information on it is available.

- Most links work and link to archives, but some do not work.

Organization and writing quality

- The article is not concise and clear, but it is still relatively easy to read although containing a lot of "weasel words."

- The article does have grammatical errors, but I did not catch any spelling errors.

- The article is well-organized, but a lot of information that came up in the lead section should be dispersed throughout the body of the article.

Images and Media

- The article does not include any images.

- N/A

- N/A

- N/A

Talk page discussion

- Conversations about the quality of the article and spelling of a victim's last name have been brought up, but there are no replies. Otherwise, there are bots adding archive links.

- The article is rated C class to all of the WikiProjects it is a part of: Law, United States: Austin, Crime, and Women.

- The way Wikipedia discusses this topic does not differ from the way we've talked about it in class (I'm a little confused about what this question means), but one new thing that wasn't discussed in class is the importance-level rankings that I didn't know existed.

Overall impressions

- The article's overall status is okay... readable and informative but needs improvement

- The article's strengths are its length, being updated with recent information, and having a neutral standpoint.

- The article can be improved with removing "weasel words," adding reliable and existing citations, and adding visuals to enhance understanding of the topic.

- I wouldn't say the article is poorly developed but perhaps underdeveloped. However, a lot of the underdevelopment can be attributed to the murder case being a cold case and thus not much information is accessible in the first place.