User:Suv702/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: (link) Guo Moruo
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Guo Moruo is a very famous writer, politician and poet in China that I am very familiar with. I have studied his work when I went to high school and quite fond of some of his works.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead only has one single sentence but it DOES 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? Since the major sections include Guo's life and they mostly consist of his career approaching, I would say the Lead DOES include a brief description of the article's major sections since it listed all his areas of study and job titles.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I would say no since most of his areas of study are included in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is quite consise since it is only one sentence.

Lead evaluation
Overall it is a good Lead since it does cover all the sections below and it covers the important information readers need.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, all the information appears to be relevant to the topic as it describes the whole life of Guo. While some parts are focused on other things related to Guo which is his family and etc.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Since Guo's life is not a mystery, it is well recorded I would say the contect is up-to-date since Guo has passed away a long time ago and there will hardly be anything new to dig from him.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some of Guo's life are missing, for example, his death.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No notable equity gaps could be found, no it doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Content evaluation
'''Generally the content is informative and plenty. However, still some parts of Guo's whole life are missing like his death. Also, the order or information in the content is not well-designed. I believe it should address his whole life first step by step and then describes his family and literature works. Another big problem is the grammatical or spelling errors in this article, they increase the difficulty of reading this article to the next level.'''

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, it desribes Guo with a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, not that I have found.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all viewpoints are neutral and unbiased.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, not that I have found.

Tone and balance evaluation
'''Generally the tone is neutral. Since the article addresses Guo's personal life, I don't see anything biased when the editor provides information.'''

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources and secondary sources work well with the literatures on Guo.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, most of the sources are up-to-date with both early-modern and modern perspectives.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are written by different authors from different times so I would say yes. But they do not include marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are quite a few links that do not work or lead to pages not found.

Sources and references evaluation
Even though the sources and references are accurate enough with secondary sources, some of the urls do not work is a very serious problem.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No, it is not. People would find it troublesome to read it because of the grammatical errors and bad organizations.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, there are a lot of grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, the article lacks organization just like I said above. The order of contect would confuse readers and some important information are missing. Even though the major points are clear, it is still badly organized.

Organization evaluation
Poor organization and grammatical errors make the article look VERY bad.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it has a couple of pictures to help understand.
 * Are images well-captioned? I would say yes, they all mean to help understand the topic.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they are all cited and referenced.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they are outstanding.

Images and media evaluation
The use of images and media are good, they do help people better understand the content.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are questions asked about the potential mistakes in the article which require a discussion or further research. It can definitely help improve the accuracy of the topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated Stub-class in two WikiProjects. WikiProject Biography and WikiProject China.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia is more neutral without any personal emotions while the way we discuss in class could involve in personal bias and feelings. Also the wiki discussion requires more source and references.

Talk page evaluation
Generally a good Talk page, multiple questions are asked and mistakes are pointed out to be fixed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * What are the article's strengths? The tone is neutral and the content is overall detailed and informative.
 * How can the article be improved? We should start with correcting the grammatical and spelling errors, then fix the organization problems and fill in the missing parts of content.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Uderdeveloped I would say.

Overall evaluation
Overall uderdeveloped I would say, still a lof of errors to be fixed and mistakes to be corrected.

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: