User:Emorri89/Evaluate an Article

User:Emorri89/Evaluate an Article edit

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Bunbuku Chagama
I have chosen this article to evaluate because I believe I once read another version of it at the library I previously worked at. I find fairytales from different cultures to be very interesting as well.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The lead gives a concise introduction to the tale and includes links as well as a translation of the title in English.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- There is a contents section right below the introductory sentence.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, it does not include irrelevant information.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Everything is relevant.
Is the content up-to-date?
- The content is as up to date as it can be. The story was written in the 1800s. Some sources are from 2000s so the author has used more recent information as well as information from the time the story was written.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- I cannot think of any content that could be missing in the article.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- I don't believe so. In Western society they would be underrepresented more likely than in Japan.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, just descriptions of the book and the history of its origin.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- I don't believe so.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No.

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?
- Some of them are. It was probably difficult to find current sources as the story was written so long ago.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes. I didn't see any historically marginalized groups being included.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not that I noticed.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- The pictures included are those that were part of the story, or what the animal the story is about, actually looks like.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes. Two of the pictures are public domain and one has the permission of the copyright holder for it to be published.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- They are well spaced. A picture approximately every third of the article.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- No conversations. Just one person asking what type of story it was in the talk tab.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is part of two WikiProjects. WikiProject Japan and it is also supported by WikiProject Mythology.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- We haven't talked about it in class.

What is the article's overall status?
- I don't know how to find that. There are no warnings at the top if that is what was meant.
What are the article's strengths?
- all sections seem to be strong.
How can the article be improved?
- In Popular Culture could have been elaborated more to match the other sections.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- The article was well-developed.

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 — ~~~~