User:SleepyDragon18/Evaluate an Article

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

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.)

I chose this article because I love wolves, and I'm interested in Norse Mythology. My preliminary impression of this this article was that it needed a deeper explanation.

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
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead in this article is a single sentence that describes what the paragraph is about. It explains what Sköll is and cites the source it comes from.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not really describe anything else than a description of Sköll and possibly that it refers to norse sun wolf and moon wolf. This article is very short and confusing.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * The article is so small the lead already takes up half the information, and they don’t rephrase it in the following paragraph.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead does include information through links that describe where the information on Sköll comes from. Again, this is a very short description.

Content
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * This article is about what Sköll is, a wolf that chases the sun, but doesn’t get much into depth about the mythology in the topic. The majority of the content is a quote referring to how Sköll or his counterpart Hati Hróðvitnisson are an old interpretation of Sun dogs or Moon dogs which refer to the phenomenon in which light refracts in the sky around the sun or moon.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content mainly comes from outdated sources, so it could use an update.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a statement about a person that doesn’t have any links or descriptions, and makes the article confusing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article doesn’t refer to anything to do with equity or underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints that overrepresent or underrepresent.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * There are not any fringe viewpoints in the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * This article does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The facts in this article are not really backed up by sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are verifiable books, although there is no page reference to check the information this article represents as fact.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are from the 1990’s and may be outdated information.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There were only two source books about norse mythology that were written by demographically similar people.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * There seem to be better, more updated sources available from authored websites on various norse mythology animals. The webpages had much more information than this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they link to other Wikipedia pages.

Organization and writing quality
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is confusing to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is an incomplete sentence in this article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article isn’t broken into organized sections.

Images and Media
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The images in the article are fine. They’re in black and white and are older illustrations.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The article has somewhat visually appealing images.

Talk page discussion


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * In the talk page, people are asking about the name origin of Sköll, what the meaning of the word is, how it references stories their family told them. There is one comment that points out how Sköll isn’t another name of Fenrir, but rather Sköll and Hati are Fenrir’s children.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It’s rated as a Stub-class, and it’s a part of WikiProjects Norse History and Culture, and Mythology.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The way the topics are discussed are a bit less organized, and there weren't any references to them in the article.

Overall impressions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article needs a lot of improvement.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is very short.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article needs to be expanded upon.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * This article is underdeveloped and incomplete.