User:TereBon22/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: Talk:Aztlán
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The reason I choose this article was because I have heard of Aztlán as an island where the Aztecs originated from  but I did not know the whole back story of Aztlán.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence is interesting but not quite clear nor concise about the subject.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not have a brief description of the history of Aztlán, it skips right to the location.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does not include information that is not present in the article, it lacks consistency in the subject.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No, it lack details overall.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article goes off topic plenty of times.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No the content is not up-to-date, perhaps there is a lack of information for the page to have more information inputted.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, there is both missing and content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * No, the article is not neutral, it is quite subjective.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, but it is opinionated.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, the article has insufficient sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, some article are of 2013.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Two links do not work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No, the article need work.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, there is grammatical errors that need to be corrected.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, the article is not well-organized, it lacks consistency.

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?

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?
 * I am guessing it is C class page.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The Wikipedia page lacks in many areas, like citations.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What is the article's overall status?

A work in progress.


 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It need to provide more information as well as to be objective.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * it is underdeveloped.

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: