User:Smithlilly3/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: National Consumers League
 * I chose this article because it is relevant to our text, "A Consumers' Republic", and it seems it is lacking some important information.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The page does have a solid lead and introduction. I feel like they define the organization well. It gives an overlook of the article in a box on the side but goes into little description in the written paragraph. It is concise but I would say it is under detailed rather than over detailed.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The content listed is relevant to the topic but it is very limited. It seems partially up to date but could have some updated links in the references. I would say it could have additional information about what significant accomplishments they have and examples of the work they do currently.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * I would say this article is very neutral and there is no biases presented.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * There is a list of sources but not all of them have links and some of the links no longer work. It also is marked that its sources need to be improved.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * I would say that the organization of this post is maybe the best past about it. It is well organized and easy to navigate. I did not find any grammaticla or spelling errors while reading it.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * The post has three photos that I think are relevant and helpful but they are small and off to the side. I think it could make the page look fuller if one was added or one of the existing photos was enlarged. They are all well captioned.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The only note on the talk page is that it needs more historical information and it is rated a stub.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * Overall I think this article is well organized and non bias but it is lacking a lot of important information and needs to have its sources updated. I would say it only partially complete and pretty under developed.


 * 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?

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: