User:Zoemarrott/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.

• Name of article: (link) Reading comprehension#History
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. : This article outlines the historical importance of reading comprehension, which is a central goal of my organization, BUILD. This article briefly defines and outlines various strategies for successful reading comprehension, many of which have dually been noted in some of my organization's trainings.

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 lead does a good job of briefly summarizing what the subsequent material in the article will discuss. The author(s) provided a detailed table of contents in the lead section to help readers and other Wikipedia users navigate throughout the 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?

Content evaluation

: The article's content is relevant to the topic; however, there is a banner at the top of the page that warns readers that the content is mostly drawn from examples and perspectives in the United States, not worldwide. For the most part, the content seems up-to-date (ish), the most recent edits were pblished in February of 2019.

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

The article throughout is written in a rather unbiased, neutral tone and provides succinct and fairly equal representation of each viewpoint

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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Not all claims have been backed by sources. Some citations seem to be missing, even though quotations were used in the paragraphs. There seems to be a lot of edits that have called this missing information to attention by inputting ("citation needed"). For the most part, the sources seem to reflect current times as most were published within the last few decades. Only a handful of the sources used in the Wikipedia article were published in the 1970's, but for the most part, most of the sources were published within the last two decades. All the links I checked on the article 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

Overall, the article was easy to read and follow, especially with the table of contents provided in the Lead section of this article.

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

The article did not include many images, but the ones it did have did follow Wikipedia's copyright regulation and supplemented the adhering text nicely.

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

Most of the conversations conducted on the talk page relate to either relocating information or developing new sections within the article to provide a more detailed and global understanding of the subject matter, reading comprehension. The talk page seemed a little controversial, as it looks like two authors had opposing and conflicting viewpoints that were not mitigated calmly or very professionally, which worries me about the validity of content. The article has been rated as a C-class article and is used within the scope of two WikiProjects, 1) WikiProject Education and 2) WikiProject Linguistics

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

Overall, I think the article is still missing some key information, such as comparative perspectives based on different nations, citations for clams, and perhaps an extension to its historical tab. The article did really well in its structure, as it made following and reading the material relatively easy. I think the article can be improved if more sources are cited and used, and if more authors contribute to the content of this broad topic. I do not think that the article itself is necessarily completed, but the infromation provide does suffice in providing a brief and succinct understanding of what reading comprehension is and how it has been achieved.

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: