User:Taraparker/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.


 * Tofu Curtain: Tofu Curtain
 * I chose this article to evaluate because it relates to our Urban Economics course, but was about a concept (tofu curtain) that I didn't really know a lot about.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic. The lead does touch on the article's major sections and splits up the article by location. The lead has some additional facts that don't make too much sense to keep in an introduction.


 * 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 article focuses on examples where the concept of the tofu curtain is prevalent. This is relevant data, but I believe the article should focus more on the concept in general. There are only about two sentences about the overall concept in general. The article's last section discusses Asia, but not in relation to the tofu curtain. It discusses Asia's consumption of tofu, which is not relevent to the article. The concept appears to be up to date. The resources mostly written between 2009 and 2018. I think an update on some of these could be beneficial. This article discusses wealth gaps and populations of different cultures.


 * 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

This article is neutral and explains numerous viewpoints on the subject. The viewpoint of the United States is explained a lot more than that of Australia or Asia. The article explains the concept but does not argue a point.


 * 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

This article references many articles to back up their claims. The resources come from a variety of types of sources. The sources range from being published in 2009 to 2018. The article references many authors of diverse backgrounds including people of historically marginalized groups. The majority of the links do work.


 * 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

The article is concise, but the quality of the writing could be improved. It has a few grammatical errors. The organization of the article makes sense but I think it could have been organised in a better way.


 * 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 article includes images that enhance the understanding of the tofu curtain. It includes maps of areas where a tofu curtain exists. I do not completely understand however, why there is a picture of tofu at the end of the article. The images are all good quality and are cited. The layout of the pictures makes sense.


 * 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

One person on the talk page questions one of the facts used by the author, who responded and further supported what he was saying. Another person suggested improving the visuals by adding a key and labels to them. The article does not have a rating but is supported by WikiProjects.


 * 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

The article is informative. It can definitely be improved in terms of its structure and organisation. I also think a bit of the information is irrelevant and the author can find more relevant information on it. The article is underdeveloped.


 * 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: