User:LauraStephens435/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: Breaking Bad
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. My boyfriend recently got me hooked on this show. We watched it on Netflix and skipped through some of the episodes, so I'm watching from the beginning to get the full story. It makes me wonder how many people in Walter White's situation have turned to criminal activity to pay medical bills and provide for their families. Breaking Bad is a great show!

Lead evaluation

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The first sentence lets you know that this is a page for the show.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not exactly, but it does include an outline of the article sections after the introductory paragraphs.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It appears that all the information in the lead is covered in more detail in the body of the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There is a lot of information in the lead, but it seems to be a good overview for the rest of the article. For instance, if you were looking for some basic information about the show, you would likely find it in this lead without having to dig through the article.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content up-to-date? It is up-to-date. The show ended in 2013, and information about the Breaking Bad movie and spin-off shows is included.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content is relevant and belongs. I cannot think of anything about the show that does not appear in this very detailed article.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Is the article neutral? Yes. The contributors were likely big fans of the show, but the article is from a neutral standpoint.
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? It does not, it is an information article.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. The article has a huge reference list of over 200 references. Information in the article is backed up to reference sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there are plenty of articles on the topic. These are mostly from sources in the entertainment industry, but this seems appropriate considering it is about a TV show.
Are the sources current? Yes
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? With 200+ sources, there is definitely a diverse spectrum of authors, although some authors have multiple articles cited.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. I did not check every link, but the 50 or so I clicked did work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. It is concise for the material covered.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not identify any grammatical or spelling errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the topics are well broken down and flow in a way that makes sense to the reader.

Images and media evaluation

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, there are some pictures from the show included, and also pictures of sites in Albuquerque used in the show.
Are images well-captioned? Yes, the images are all captioned and cited.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? All but one of the images adheres. There is one picture of the montage of the show which does not include a source. This is the green background with "Breaking Bad" denoted by the chemical symbols.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The images in the article are very small, but they are laid out in a visually appealing way and the reader can see a larger image by clicking on it.

Talk page evaluation

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? For such a lengthy article, I thought there would be more content in the talk page than there is. Conversations include the claim that it is the "best show of all time", articles for specific episodes, edits to external links, and some conversation about grammatical changes made.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is a level 5, B-class article, and it has been nominated several times for "good article". The talk page indicates that it did not meet the criteria at the time of the evaluation.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The Wikipedia evaluation, as we've discussed in class, seems to be detailed and stringent to be considered a good article. We have talked about how Wikipedia can be a good source of information. I have always heard that Wikipedia isn't a good source because it can be changed. Knowing how it works now will help me to determine whether an article is credible.

What is the article's overall status? This is overall a "good" article, but could use some improvements.
What are the article's strengths? The article is very detailed and well-referenced. Most everything you would ever want to know about the show is within this article.
How can the article be improved? There are some episodes that have their own detailed write-up, and some that do not. It would be improved with more complete information. Some better formatting could also help.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that the article is well-developed. It appears that there have been many contributors.

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 — ~~~~ I added a question about contributing content about episodes not already summarized.