Jump to content

User:Amandaerfeng/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: (link)Modern Family
  • Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I choose this article because this is my favourite TV show.

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions
It has a lead but is not very concise.
  • 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]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions
Yes, the contect is related to the topic, all the important data are included.
  • 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?
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation[edit]

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions

The article introduced too much on how great the show was instead the show itself.

  • 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]

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions
The sources are very thorough.
  • 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?
  • 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?

Sources and references evaluation[edit]

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions
I have find some mistakes, missing space, for example.
  • 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]

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions
I think this article can use more picture since this is about a TV show, not an acdemic article.
  • 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
The article is rated as C-Class
  • 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]

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions
I think this article is very complete overall. It introduced each seasons, and relationships between characters. However, it could use more pictures, and less words leading about how the show did in the beginning would be nicer.
  • 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]

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: