User:Zwdy/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: (Camera eats first)
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
Lead[edit]
- 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[edit]
The lead is pretty well written.
Readers are able to get a basic outline of the topic.
It's not long, which makes it easy to read.
It also includes a brief summary of the major sections of the article.
Content[edit]
- 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[edit]
The content is relevant to the topic, including the background information, and positive and negative effects.
However, the content is not up-to-date because most of the references are from 2015 and 2016.
The article can also have a section talk more about the role of psychology involved in the phenomenon, which can make the article more scientific.
Tone and Balance[edit]
- 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[edit]
The article is neutral.
The point of psychological need could be expanded a little bit.
Sources and References[edit]
- 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[edit]
The sources are not very current, as I said, they are mostly in 2015 and 2016.
Several of the links don't work.
Organization[edit]
- 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[edit]
The structure is pretty good. It's easy clear and easy to read.
Images and Media[edit]
- 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[edit]
There is only one image in the article, which might not be enough to enhance reader's understanding of the topic.
The caption is poorly written. It just says "photo examples of the "Camera Eats First".
The image is not visually appealing either. Should have a better photo.
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?
Talk page evaluation[edit]
There is only one conversation on the talk page about the changes he or she made to the article.
It's rated as a C-class article. It's part of WikiProject Food and Drink.
Wikipedia evaluates the article as an orphan because there isn't any other articles link to it.
Overall impressions[edit]
- 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[edit]
The article's strengths is that it introduces the general aspects of the topic, but they tend to be too general.
It should have more up-to-date references and more scientific backgrounds to backup the effects it addresses.
Overall, I think it's underdeveloped.
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: