User:Paige2112/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: Bear Dance
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because it lacked information and needed improvement.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it explains what the Bear Dance is and what it is meant for.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it's a brief description but it could use more to show the major sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead talks more about the event but doesn't go into depth in the rest of the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The content is relevant because it talks a little about the history if the bear dance and what it is meant for.
Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it is up-to-date according to other articles.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content missing because it could go more into depth about the reasons behind it or what they do in their dance.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, it does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations because there is not much information about Native Americans.

Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral because it doesn't have any opinions or bias.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are no claims that are heavily biased, they are all very neutral.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? What the bear dance is meant for is underrepresented.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not persuade the reader in anyway, they are informing the reader.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, it has about three different articles used for secondary information.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they are all thorough and are reflect the topic well.
Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are all current.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? They are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and do include historically marginalized individuals.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is concise and very easy to read.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, the article does not have any spelling or grammatical errors.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is well organized but there are not many sections discussed.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There's only one image that does not enhance the topic.
Are images well-captioned? No, the image is not well captioned and doesn't give detail regarding the picture.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, it adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, the picture is off to the side and very small.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The one person on the talk page said that there should be information about the purpose of this article.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is rated stub-class and it is within the scope of two WikiProjects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It doesn't go into as much depth on the topic compared to topics we've talked about in class.

What is the article's overall status? The article is weak.
What are the article's strengths? It is concise, easy to read, and informative.
How can the article be improved? The article can use some more information about the bear dance and go into more depth.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped and needs more 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 — ~~~~