User:Theinbetween909/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: (Friendship and Freedom)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because the title of this article caught my attention. Once I clicked on it I became more interested when I discovered it was a newsletter and I wanted to see what kinds of things were discussed.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some supporting content could have been added.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * 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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * no
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes, very easy to read and understand
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * nothing major that I noticed
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * This was a shorter article that did not really need to be broken down

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * the main comment on the talk page addresses the issue of one of the sources not being properly updated
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * it is part of the Wiki project Chicago, Wiki project magazines, and Wiki project LGBT studies.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is not as much context in this article. The things we read in class and the videos we watch provide context to the times and what the experiences were like.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Start class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The major strength is that it is easy to read. In addition the facts are supported with sources.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There could be more explanation as to why the newsletter was destroyed. For example, the author could have outlined what the times were like for LGBT people which would have highlighted why a newsletter like this was made.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Maybe if there was more information on the subject the author would have included a breakdown and split up the contents of the article. This would have kept the article a bit more organized.

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: