User:Thegodofchaos/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Polybius Square (Polybius square)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article due to the fact that i have chosen it to be the article I wish to improve in this course.

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence clearly describes the article topic, however it is long and could probably be better in a few shorter sentences.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not describe all of the sections of the article, Telegraphy and steganography are missing.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes! It mentions the origin of the device, but that information nor any follow up is in the article itself.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise!

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The content is certainly related to the topic!
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content is decently up to date as the topic isn't really current, however there has been several adaptations to the device that could be discussed which are not.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some more history on the device is missing, and some future applications certainly could be added. No content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral? The article has sufficiently neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I detect
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I can tell
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Again, not that I can see, the article is quite "factual" provided the facts are actually facts.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? NO! The article only has one source, and more importantly, ONE CITATION.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The only source is a primary source, there is certainly more on the topic!
 * Are the sources current? No! The only source is very old primary source.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work, and there are lots of lots of in-text links to other articles.

Organization

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is decently written, certainly not badly written, but i believe there can be many improvements!
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I have detected.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think it needs more sections, namely History and Applications.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It only has two graphics, which are helpful, but it certainly could use some more images!
 * Are images well-captioned? No real images to be captioned, but the graphics are explained well.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No real images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Checking the talk page

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Only one question in the talk page about how the device is actually used from 2015, with no answer.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated Start-class, and is involved with WikiProjects for Classical Greece and Rome, Mathematics, Cryptography and Computer Science.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Well we have not talked about it, and Wikipedia isn't exactly discussing it much either.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? The article is rated start class, probably due to the severe lack of sources.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has a fair amount of information written pretty well.
 * How can the article be improved? The article desperately needs more sources and more information on the history behind the topic as well as more information backing what is already there.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Definitely underdeveloped and not complete, but is still better than not existing at all! It is involved in many WikiProjects so I am surprised it hasn't been improved yet!