User:Kadepfoster/Evaluate an Article

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: Public speaking
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen to evaluate this article because I believe that it is a relatively high-trafficked article on a relevant topic to many people and, thus, should be properly updated.

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. It mentions the roots of public speaking being from Greece, Rome, and Latin America then fails to mention Latin America at all in the History section. It also talks about public speaking as persuasion and does not mention persuasion in the Uses section.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise for the most part with maybe a few too many details.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? I believe that the content is highly relevant and rarely deviates away from the topic
Is the content up-to-date? Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Is the article neutral? The article relies heavily on the Greco-Roman roots of public speaking but fails to mention the Latin American roots that it introduced in the Lead section
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not really
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? History of public speaking in any place but Greece or Rome is underrepresented.
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? All but a few facts are backed up well with sources while those few reference the source in the text but without a citation
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are nearly entirely from textbooks on communication or public speaking.
Are the sources current? All but two sources are from the past decade while those two are from the 1990s; however, due to the topics they discuss I feel they are current enough
Check a few links. Do they work? All that I tried worked

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is very concise and easy to read
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? Yes but minimally so
Are images well-captioned? yes
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Two of the three images are, while the last is grainy and not necessary

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is an ongoing debate about merging the pages for Public Speaking, Public Speaker, Orator, and Oratory into one large and comprehensive page
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a level-5 vital article and is part of the WikiProjects for Politics, Literature, Linguistics, and Popular Culture
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? They differ very little

What is the article's overall status? Very good, but could use minor improvements
What are the article's strengths? The clear and concise manner of addressing each point
How can the article be improved? Merge it with other related topics as proposed in the Talk section
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I believe it is 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 — ~~~~