User:Warriors29/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: Sacagawea
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen to evaluate this article because Sacagawea is one of the few women I learned about in my History classes throughout grade school. I want to see how much information is out there on Wikipedia in regards to Sacagawea.

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 both an introductory sentence and it helps to describe the articles topic. It provides the readers with a brief description of the major sections. It is concise and does not have information that is not present in the article. Overall, it seems to be relevant with important information.

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
The content is very relevant, it talks about her life and important details. It seems as though it is up to date with relevant information such as her being induced into the National Women's Hall of Fame. I don't see any information that does not belong.

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 article uses neutral language and does not seem to have any option based facts. The tone seems to be appropriate and balanced. I do not see any claims that seem biased or in any certain position in regards to the views of Sacagawea. The article explains how there is only a limited amount of information out there about Sacagawea that is seen as reliable, so when know as readers they are looking for very reliable information, nothing that is biases or possibly false. There is no persuasion in this article, it only seems based off of facts that are cited.

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
Yes, all of the facts are backed up with citations that readers can click on. The sources seem current and seem to reflect the available literature. They point out the Sacagawea has a few various ways of spelling her name, those are cited as well. One of the links I clicked on worked and it said it was from National Geographic, but when I clicked on that link, I was given an 'oops' page and said it was no longer available. But it National Geographic is a reliable source to use.

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 is very organized. It has the content table which is organized and a very helpful tools for readers to use when they are researching her and want to know about a specific category. There are no spelling or grammatical errors that I could find. All of the major topics are bolded and in headings and it is very organized all the way through the article.

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?

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
When I clicked on the talk page, I saw someone made a comment about the many paragraphs that talk about the spelling of Sacagawea's name. I also saw someone put an inaccuracy for one part, saying that it should not say "she helped" but they suggest they put "she led". It is rated in the B class, mostly of mid importance. It seems to have 6 wiki projects and was nominated as a "Good Article" nominee. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is different than the way we discuss in class is that it is very hard facts based and it needs to be very exact wording and in class we do not discuss in the same way we would type up research.

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 seemed organized to me and it used a neutral tone. There was more information in the article than I was expecting there to be. There was many citations and everything seemed clear and correct in terms of spelling and grammar. As far as weaknesses, once I read the talk section, I saw that there needs to be a few adjustments, but they did not seem to be too bad. I would say that the weakness could be some non working links and the technical term that a user brought up in the talk page, using "She led" instead of "She helped". Other than those few improvements I think it was a well developed article, with only some minor fixing needed. and It seemed developed enough int he fact that there was information, even though the article says there is limited amount of reliable information.

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: