User:Yanjun-Liu3/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: State and Private Forestry
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Because I find the introduction of this article very brief, and I want to have a deeper understanding of the content of this article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? No
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there are missing content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No, some of them did not work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think it is not a very good article, but it is easy to read for me.
 * 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? Not really.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it is.
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not really.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversation.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale and has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.  It is a part of  WikiProjects forestry
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Unlike the casual nature of classroom discussion, discussion on Wikipedia are more neutral.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Generally speaking, it is quite good.
 * What are the article's strengths? The layout of this article is clear, logical and easy to understand.
 * How can the article be improved? This article needs to confirm the source of its information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article can be said to be relatively complete, its thoughts can be said to be well-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: