User:Momachikp/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.

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? Yes
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

The lead includes a good introductory sentence, it has a brief description of major sections, and it is relatively concise.

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? There is no missing content, and no 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? No

The content is relevant to the topic and it is up-to-date.

Is the article neutral? Yes
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

The article is balanced and presents the information objectively.

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
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? Yes

The facts are all backed up by reliable information and the sources are current.

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? No
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

The article is well-written, and it has no grammar or spelling errors. It is well organized.

The images are appealing and well-captioned.

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? No

The article is rated well. It is not part of any WikiProjects, as far as I can see. It discusses the person just as I learned in class.

What is the article's overall status? Good.
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved? More concise.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall, the article is really well done. It appears to be overly detailed and could be improved by being more concise in many areas.

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 — ~~~~