User:Opitzm1/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: First haircut
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article could definitely use more information in it, both in elaborating on the current content and adding the meaning of cutting hair in other cultures as well.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first line of the article tells about the significance it can have in cultures.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does not contain anything about the sections that come after it.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead is only one line long and does not contain any information that is not already in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is extremely concise, could use some more in it.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant to the topic, it describes the meaning of cutting hair in several different cultures.
Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the content is up to date and was last edited on the 16th of September this year.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is content that is missing in the sense that more could be added.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does talk about other cultures besides American culture, including Native American, Yazidi, Slavic, and Polynesian.

Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is completely neutral when discussing the subject.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no claims that are biased.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No viewpoint is over or under represented.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No there are a couple sources that are not able to be confirmed as reliable.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No the sources used are not very thorough when talking about things.
Are the sources current? No the sources are not current for the most part.
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? Not all the source links work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article itself is easy to read and understand.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The article does not have any errors that I noticed.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is broken down into sections based on the culture that is being discussed.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has images but they don't really enhance the understanding of the topic any.
Are images well-captioned? The images do correctly describe what is occurring in them.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes I believe they do.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes they are placed appropriately.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There aren't any conversations about the topic.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article itself is currently unrated and it is apart of several wikiprojects but its importance is rated as low.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article doesn't have good sources and is lacking in information.

What is the article's overall status? Needs a fair deal of work.
What are the article's strengths? The one strength I can say the article has is that the information is pretty straight to the point.
How can the article be improved? Adding better sources and putting in more cultures along with improving the ones that it currently has.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped but has a decent ground work for a better version of it.

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 — ~~~~