User:Macleandkirk/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: Murder of the Notorious B.I.G.
I chose this article because it is not only a topic that is of interest to me, but it is also one that is controversial.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it describes briefly the murder of Christopher Wallace.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. The Lead addresses the major sections of the article.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? IT does not include information that is not present in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article explains the murder, investigation, and following lawsuits.
Is the content up-to-date? Not exactly; the article provides no information about the Wallace family or the crimes past 2012.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article has very little regarding his childhood or personal life, and could have more information about the East Coast-West Coast feud.

Is the article neutral? It appears to be rather neutral, but appears to demonize the LAPD's inactions following the shooting. It is somewhat biased in that sense.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It appears to side with the Notorious B.I.G. camp.
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.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Somewhat. Many of the links do not appear to be academic sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
Are the sources current? Yes.
Check a few links. Do they work? Most of them do, but several bring you to a page that reads: "This site can not be reached."

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? It does not appear so.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It includes an image of the Petersen Automotive Museum, which is where the party he attended took place prior to his murder.
Are images well-captioned? The image is well captioned.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? It does not really add anything to the narrative. Perhaps a crime scene photo (if available) would be better suited.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talkpage appears to be rather biased.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is part of several WikiProjects: Biography/Musicians, Crime, Death, Hip Hop, United States/American music, United States History, and California/Los Angeles
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is very informative, but at times can be dangerously specualtive.

What is the article's overall status? I would say that it is a rather strong article.
What are the article's strengths? It lays out, in detail, the events of the night. I found this particularly interesting because it is an unsolved crime.
How can the article be improved? There is some conflicting information. The introduction claims the Wallace family sued the LAPD for $400 million, while later it states $500 million. $100 million is quite a difference...
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it is well developed, but should include some more current information.

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 — ~~~~