User:Sisbister/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: Road to Avonlea
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article because I have an interest in Canadian TV and literature. Additionally, it is a C-Class article and a part of WikiProject Canada.

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
The lead of this article does explain the article's topic, however it contains some information not included in subheadings in the rest of the article. Specifically, information about later works written based on the series could have its own section. Additionally, some facts are not cited.

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 content is relevant. I think that it could use a section on "Related works" which could include information about books based on the series. And maybe perhaps some information on critical reception. The "background and development" section contains plot synopsis information and information about about related works. These could be put in another section.

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 and balanced. There are no opinions in the article, only facts- albeit, uncited.

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
No, not all facts are backed by a reliable secondary source. The sources are likely not thorough although I would have to do more research to be sure. The sources are all within the last few years, and I checked several of the linked sources and they do work.

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 organization needs work. The character synopsis section is a little messy, and the lead of the article is disorganized. Information in the "Background and Development" section could go elsewhere.

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 is one image, a picture of the cast of the show. It is captioned appropriately and the information about the image is that it is a promotional image, able to use for free because there is no other possible alternative.

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 article is part of two WikiProjects, Canada project and WikiProject Television. It is a C-class article and is of middling priority for the Canada project. The talk page is very outdated, with people discussing changes to the article in 2010 but not any more recently. There is information about edits in the edit page, most notably in March of 2019 it was downgraded from a B article to a C article due to poor/incomplete referencing.

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
The article's overall status is one of very poor citation. Numerous facts in the article are unverified. The article is strong in terms of information about the characters; clearly, someone who knows the series well has worked on it. The article can be primarily improved by adding citations for the facts in the article, after which some reorganizing could take place.

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: