User:LuChen2019/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 interest design
- I chose this article because I am very interested in public welfare. And public welfare is not just about staying at the level of donation. Therefore, I found this article about public interest design and more understanding of architectural design and environmental protection issues.
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?
The Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, it shows that the design of the public interest is a people-oriented design. Includes ecological, economic and social issues. The Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections, which emphasizes that the design philosophy is to address issues such as economic development and environmental protection. The Lead include information that is not present in the article? It has links cited in the following. The Lead is not overly detailed.[edit]
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?
The article's content relevant to the topic. Involving definitions, explanations, purposes, etc. The content is up-to-date. Explain the development process from history to the present.[edit]
The content is not missing.[edit]
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?
The article is neutral, no claims. the viewpoint is not overrepresented, and not persuade the reader in favor of one position.[edit]
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?
It looks reliable because there are many source that has citation.[edit]
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?
It is clear, no grammatical errors and well-organized.[edit]
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?
no images[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 looks empty. not good enough.[edit]
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?
The article looks good, but need to add more information such as how we can do it, who did this job.[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: