User:Mvmarsha/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article. This article is assigned for coursework. It tells us the History of Wikipedia and how its different forms/traditions are used today.

• Name of article: Encyclopedia
• Class

Lead

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?

Lead evaluation

The encyclopedia article is not well represented because of its sources that are used. Sources should come from reliable places. Yes, it does have a sentence, but it almost questionable on whether or not this article should be started off like that.The lead does clearly state that this article will be about Encyclopedia's. The following paragraphs include words which were not mentioned in the Lead Section. Everything that was stated in the Lead paragraph can be found in the sub parts of this article. Except many parts in this article are not said in the Lead section. Yes all of the information covered in the Lead can be found in the rest of the article. The lead is concise but it is not very detailed on other parts that are mentioned in this article.

Content

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?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

Yes the articles content is revenant to the topic, although there is certain details missing. Such as the introduction to the word etymology, is not very detailed. Nor are the sources reliable or from a journal article. The subsections need more depth to them, I would recommend pulling from more articles. The content is up-to date. I don't see any evidence that this article deals with equity gaps. Some of the quotes are not written by reliable sources.

Tone and Balance

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

I do not see this article as being neutral due to its choice of writings. Just by stating that encyclopedia's is only written by "experts" which is not true. There are journal articles that can refute this opinion. No, the article does not try to persuade but it might need to be more descriptive if that was the goal of this article.

Sources and References

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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

On the sup-page characteristics and other subpages there seems to be a lack of reliable sources. These sources are not faceable articles that are used. Yes the articles are thorough and very detailed although they do not stem from a journal article/credible source. Yes these articles seem to be up to date. Yes these articles come from diverse publishers based on the publications that they were sent from. Yes, overall the links do work.

Organization

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?

Organization evaluation

There seems to be a few sentences that need to be reworded. Some sections are hard to read. Some of the subpages seem to have no coloration with the other sup-pages. It is not well organized because of the prior problem I've mentioned.

Images and Media

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?

Images and media evaluation

No, I do not believe that the images enhance the understand. It does let us have a visually appealing article. All images are not well informed when it comes to its captions.

Checking the talk page

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 evaluation

The article is Class-C. There are many people on the talk page even those who do not rightfully contribute to the help of this page.

Overall impressions

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?

Overall evaluation

I think this article still needs to developing. Good foundation but more information needs to be added. Some information mentioned in this article are not true facts and would need to be reevaluated.

Optional activity

• 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: