User:Tokidokiokey13/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: Japanese jazz
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This is due to the intersection of my interests regarding both Japanese culture, jazz music, as well as the genre of Japanese jazz itself.

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
==== The Lead includes an explanation of Japanese jazz that feels as though it is missing information. Perhaps there should be more specifics in the lead that are highlighted throughout the article. It partially relates to the major sections, though still feels as though it is lacking. It is concise, though could use more. ====

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
==== The content is relevant to the topic in that it talks about its origins and where it came from, though I feel it is lacking in musical explanation and the intersection between American jazz music and Japanese jazz through a music theory lens. Emphasis seems to be placed on the view of Japanese jazz from the American jazz stance including criticisms, though it feels like it takes away from the Japanese jazz of a subject in itself. It should be noted of more famous Japanese musicians such as Ryo Fukui's album Scenery. ====

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
==== The tone of the article seems to favor a view of Japanese jazz from the perspective of American jazz. The article could better reflect Japanese jazz if there wasn't so much coming back to how the West views the subject. It may persuade the reader to believe that Japanese jazz is a "knock-off" when it is really a rich fusion that deserves it's own recognition. ====

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
==== The sources and references feature sophisticated texts compared to things like newspaper articles or opinion pieces. The sources are analyses of the topic. There does seem to be a lot of repeated references on different pages, so perhaps it could be rounded out with more sources. The links 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
==== The article seems well-written, though there is much focused on the first part, the origin and then it jumps to a detailed section about the 2000's and the 2010's. The information in between seems to be glazed over. So while it is organized in a way that makes sense, it could do with more content. ====

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
==== This article has no images. It should feature famous musicians who pioneered Japanese jazz, as well as instruments from Japanese culture that may have had influence in the formation of Japanese jazz. ====

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
==== The only talking points that were featured was from a bot that added an external link. It fits in with WikiProject Japan as well as WikiProject Jazz each with mid importance. It feels as though there is importance placed on things getting done as objectives rather than exploring the cultural impacts. ====

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
==== Overall, the article explains the topic in an accurate way with sources, though it is missing pieces that would allow for it to be more well-rounded. Its strengths are the sources as well the formatting. The improvements can be made first by including images, as well as rounding out the history of Japanese jazz with more content. I would say it is partially underdeveloped, though not in a horrible spot. ====

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: