User:Tmahonn/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: Moon landing conspiracy theories
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Conspiracy theories have always been very interesting to me & seem to be not as talked about in today's world.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * What other organization helped NASA stage the moon landing hoax?


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it clearly describes the topic and the difference between the moon landing conspiracy & the great moon hoax.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does. It talks about Apollo program, NASA, hoaxes & conspiracists.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything that you need to know/learn about is there.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead is a little bit overly detailed, it didn't need as much information as it gave.

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * Is there any solid evidence that the moon landing was a hoax & staged or are there just theories & people backing up their theories?


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the articles content is extremely relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think everything you need to know or could possibly learn about the moon landing conspiracy theories is in this article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it talks about the hoaxes & the origins of it all.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * Was it important to include this much detail for the readers to fully get a grasp of it all?


 * Is the article neutral? The article seems neutral, maybe at some times leaning towards different opinions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Overrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I think it wants the reader to favor more in the belief of this conspiracy theory or that it's a possibility.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Are there any up-to-date sources or references on the moon landing?


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all sources are very reliable & protected.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they include important information about the main topic & different theories.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? This article is written by a diverse spectrum of authors. There are many instances where they include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the other links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * If the article wasn't as detailed, do you think it would capture more audience?


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is lengthy, clear, but a bit time consuming to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The article shows good grammar.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is very well-organized and broken down into several different sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * Why didn't the article include photos of blueprints?


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, with descriptions.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes all images are well-captioned with description & year.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes it follows Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes they are, it's interesting to see the different photo's and comparisons to what the article is saying.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * Why are so many people against the thought of conspiracy theories/conspiracists.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? That it's a lie, it's not true.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated a good read. It is apart of WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't talked about it in class so i'm not sure.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * Is it possible to have 400,000 people work on one project? How is it a conspiracy they got 400,000 people to work on the Apollo project for nearly 10 years?


 * What is the article's overall status? Very strong, detailed & a good read.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is long, detailed, easy to identify & VERY helpful.
 * How can the article be improved? It could have been cut down & it could have been made less lengthy to capture the readers attention for longer
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is extremely well-developed, maybe even too well-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: