User:Tjb143/sandbox

Evaluation of Wikipedia article on July 15

 * Name of article: (Laura Les)
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it seems to not have very much information on Laura Les.

Lead
Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation (write out your thoughts here)
- Yes, the introductory sentence maps out the topic quite well.

- After the introductory sentence, there is nothing else in the Lead. There are also only two other sections that are both very short.

- Yes and no. There is no other information in the article other than what music Les appears on.

- It is overly concise.

Content
Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation (write out your thoughts here)
- Yes the content is relevant to the topic, even though there isn't much content.

- As far as I know the content is up-to-date. I'm not an expert on Laura Les, though.

- There is a lot of content missing (early life, education, music career, etc).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation (write out your thoughts here)
- Yes the article is not opinionated.

- No.

- There are no viewpoints that are over or underrepresented. It's about a musician so there probably isn't too many viewpoints on them.

- No not at all.

Sources and References
Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation (write out your thoughts here)
- No, there are zero cited sources.

- There are no sources.

- There are no sources.

- The links that are in the article do work.

Organization
Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation (write out your thoughts here)
- It is concise, clear, and easy to read.

- There are no grammatical or spelling errors.

- The article does have three different sections, but they are all very short.

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?

Images and media evaluation (write out your thoughts here)
- There are no images or media in the whole article.

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?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation (write out your thoughts here)
- The only post to the talk page was done by DylanElder (from our class).

- It is not rated nor is it a part of any WikiProjects.

- There is no discussion.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation (write out your thoughts here)
- The article is very raw and basic. There seems to have only been one editor who cited zero sources.

- It is completely factual.

- It can be improved by adding more information on the subject.

- It is poorly developed.

Evaluation of Film, July 16

 * Name of article: (Four Sheets to the Wind)

Lead Section
- The lead is nice, short, and concise. It gives just enough information to know what the article is about. There maybe could be a little more information.

Plot Synopsis
- The Plot section is a very short paragraph. It's more like a short description of the movie you might see on a TV Channel Guide. It gives a broad outline of the plot.

Cast
- This section includes the real names of the main characters in the movie. I'm pretty sure that this is what the cast section should look like for this film.

Production
- This section only answers the questions of who came up with the idea to write the film (Sterlin Harjo). It mentions one thing about why the movie was written the way it was. It's missing a lot of information about production.

Release
- There is no release section.

Reception
- This section is quite detailed. It tells that the film premiered at a film festival, and it goes over the different reviews it got from notable critics. There is no information about how much money it made, but probably because it didn't premiere in theaters.

Others
- 'Bold text'Awards and NominationsBold text - This section is a table that displays all of the awards and nominations that the movie received, along with the director and actors in the movie.

Categories
- The categories section is filled out and accurate.

Infobox
- The Infobox is very well laid out and has lots of pertinent information.