User:Waysu94/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: Dragon Age: Inquisition
 * This is one of my favorite video games and I was curious to see what information would be on the WIkipedia page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It does. There is mention of an "identity crisis" that the Dragon Age series was accused of having, which isn't cited, and isn't brought up again in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * It is mostly relevant to the topic, with only one statement I would say does not belong. Previous games shouldn't be mentioned except as an acknowledgment that Inquisition was a sequel.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is content that does not belong, as discussed above.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes.
 * 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?
 * It is well-written, but there are some stylistic things I would change.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no spelling errors, but there are a couple grammatical errors that I just might go in and edit.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes? But some of the images are in sections that don't particularly make sense.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is a lot of very passionate discussion on the talk page. Nothing is particularly current, though.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as B-class and it part of the WikiProject Video games project.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is complete but in need of some edits.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is careful to maintain a neutral stance on the video game.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by removing the arbitrary mentions of an "identity crisis" in the game series. The grammatical edits will also improve the article considerably.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would call this article decently developed, but there is always room for improvement.

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: