User:XeftArb0r/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: I'm not a scientist
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: The other two pages I were looking at are severely underdeveloped (one does not exist), so I chose to look at this one because of its subject-matter in the scientific and political world.

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 is simply a single sentence that defines the phrase.

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 of the article is relevant and gives details about the usage of the phrase, as well as some consequences. The content seems up to date, though, this phrase has probably fallen out of use in the current political environment. Therefore, there might not be anything new to add.

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?

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 work and credibly show when a certain individual said the phrase.

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 short and consists of easy-to-understand sentences. In terms of organization, it is fine in how the information is ordered, though it might need some structure???

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
The article has no images. I do not expect any, since it is an article about a political phrase.

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
There was a note that the article was considered for deletion but it stayed. There is also an argument about potential bias towards a particular political party in discussions of what members say it the most often. The article has been rated as "Stub-class" for WikiProject Environment, Climate Change, and Skepticism.

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
The article provides sufficient information to get the base idea of the meaning of the phrase. However, it lacks deeper context, like what the implications of saying such a phrase is. It might also benefit from more structure, but with a low amount of information too much structure is not always a good thing. Furthermore, adding more deeper context is difficult, since, as with any political topic, it will add bias.

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: