Jump to content

User:1namesake1/Evaluate an Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: Lucy Jones
  • Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this because Lucy Jones is a Southern California earthquake celebrity! She is a well-known scientist and science communicator that many people turn to for accurate science information.

Lead

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation:

[edit]

The introductory sentence is concise and clear. The lead should includes career highlights rather than a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead includes information that is not present in the article, and as a result, seems to be overly detailed.

Content

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Is the content up-to-date?
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

[edit]

The article's content is mostly relevant - although it's section on public outreach could include more overview about Dr. Jones's public outreach work rather than a list of specific instances of outreach. The content needs updating, and should include more information about Dr. Jones's scientific work and public outreach work.

Tone and Balance

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article neutral?
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

The article's tone is neutral. The existing content does not appear to have heavy bias and there seems to be a neutral approach to presenting information. There is little language to indicate persuasion or argumentation.

Sources and References

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Are the sources current?
  • Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

The facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources, but some of the links need to be updated.

Organization

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

[edit]

The existing article is mostly concise and clear with few grammatical and spelling errors. The existing sections are organized and appropriate but may need to be re-ordered when additional updated content is added.

Images and Media

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Are images well-captioned?
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

Checking the talk page

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • 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?

Talk page evaluation

[edit]

The talk page has some comments regarding formatting and addition of new content. The tone of the conversations are not hostile.

The article is rated S - start class.

The article is part of the following WikiProjects:

  1. WikiProject Biography/ Science and Academia
  2. WikiProject Earthquakes
  3. WikiProject Geology
  4. WikiProject Physics
  5. WikiProject Women scientists

Overall impressions

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • What is the article's overall status?
  • What are the article's strengths?
  • How can the article be improved?
  • How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation

[edit]

The article is a good start and provides readers with a general overview of Dr. Jones. It's strengths include its organization and neutral tone. It's content could be updated and expanded to include more of her academic and public-facing work. The article has a completeness score of "39" - and I generally agree that while the article has some good content, it could be enhanced to reflect more of Dr. Jones' accomplishments in her field.

Optional activity

[edit]
  • 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: