User:Momachikp/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.
- William James: William James
- I am interested in William James as a famous psychologist.
Lead[edit]
- Guiding questions
- 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
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.
Lead evaluation[edit]
The lead includes a good introductory sentence, it has a brief description of major sections, and it is relatively concise.
Content[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content up-to-date? Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no missing content, and no 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? No
Content evaluation[edit]
The content is relevant to the topic and it is up-to-date.
Tone and Balance[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral? Yes
- 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? No
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
The article is balanced and presents the information objectively.
Sources and References[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
- Are the sources current? Yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
The facts are all backed up by reliable information and the sources are current.
Organization[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes
Organization evaluation[edit]
The article is well-written, and it has no grammar or spelling errors. It is well organized.
Images and Media[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
- 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? Yes
Images and media evaluation[edit]
The images are appealing and well-captioned.
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? No
Talk page evaluation[edit]
The article is rated well. It is not part of any WikiProjects, as far as I can see. It discusses the person just as I learned in class.
Overall impressions[edit]
- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status? Good.
- What are the article's strengths?
- How can the article be improved? More concise.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Overall evaluation[edit]
Overall, the article is really well done. It appears to be overly detailed and could be improved by being more concise in many areas.
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: