User:Zach demsky/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Balloon boy hoax

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article due to how odd it seemed just from the title. The story line of the "hoax" and what happened during it kept be very intrigued in the topic and i feel that this article should be corrected to be 100% true for people to get the real story of the balloon boy hoax. It matters because I believe it is a significant event that took place in Colorado and people should know about this hoax. My preliminary impression of this article was just confused because I had no clue why someone would do something like this. This is what drew my attention to it.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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, NEEDS MORE ABOUT GUILTY PLEA
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) NO
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? CONCISE, NEEDS MORE INFO ON MANY OF THE SECTIONS

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


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

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? YES
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?YES
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? YES
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? NO
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? NO

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? MOSTLY
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? YES
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? YES
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) YES
 * Check a few links. Do they work? YES

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? DEPENDS ON WHICH SECTION
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? NOT THAT I HAVE SEEN YET
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? YES

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? NO, ONLY ONE
 * Are images well-captioned? NO
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? YES
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NO

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? NOT IN GOOD ARTICLE CRITERIA, TALKS ABOUT THE HOAX BEING ONE SIDED, POOR REFRENCES, NO MORE DEBATE ON IT SINCE IT ALREADY WENT THROGH COURT,
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? RATED C CLASS
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? NOT GREAT HAS THE INFORMATION BUT NEEDS MORE
 * What are the article's strengths? GIVES A IN DEPTH STORY LINE OF THE HOAX AND INCLDUES IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE HOAX
 * How can the article be improved? MORE RELIABLE SOURCES, MORE INFORMATION ON EACH SECTION ESPECILLY THE PRICES AND GULTY PLEA
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? WELL-DEVELOPED

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting