User:TrevBeuke/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: Michael Scot(Michael Scot)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Article was a relevant subject talked about in class

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, but has some biased phrasing in the second sentence
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. Only two sentences are in the Lead
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the two sentences have all info present in the content of the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, but I'd say it would be lacking information

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Michael Sctopassed away in the 11th century, so yes?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There are some misspellings
 * Content that makes "claims," but does not site the source of said "claims"
 * The first 50 years of Michael Scot's life seem to be underdeveloped

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Content that makes "claims," but does not site the source of said "claims"
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Underrepresented
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, article is unbiased

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. Some have no references at all
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * For the most part. Some areas are needed for improvement
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Needs more information, but the information it does have is organized to a point

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?
 * A couple that made corrections to biased references of a different Michael Scott (The Office U.S.)
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Start-Class
 * University of Oxford
 * Biography
 * Astrology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Basic corrections were made vs. Biases of not including certain people

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Start-Class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Career? but it is missing the first 50 years of his life
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Adding to the overall content filling holes within his life (i.e. birthplace, date of death, etc.)
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * POORLY 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: