User:1namesake1/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: Lucy Jones
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this because Lucy Jones is a Southern California earthquake celebrity! She is a well-known scientist and science communicator that many people turn to for accurate science information.
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 introductory sentence is concise and clear. The lead should includes career highlights rather than a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead includes information that is not present in the article, and as a result, seems to be overly detailed.
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 article's content is mostly relevant - although it's section on public outreach could include more overview about Dr. Jones's public outreach work rather than a list of specific instances of outreach. The content needs updating, and should include more information about Dr. Jones's scientific work and public outreach work.
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's tone is neutral. The existing content does not appear to have heavy bias and there seems to be a neutral approach to presenting information. There is little language to indicate persuasion or argumentation.
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 facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources, but some of the links need to be updated.
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 existing article is mostly concise and clear with few grammatical and spelling errors. The existing sections are organized and appropriate but may need to be re-ordered when additional updated content is added.
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]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]The talk page has some comments regarding formatting and addition of new content. The tone of the conversations are not hostile.
The article is rated S - start class.
The article is part of the following WikiProjects:
- WikiProject Biography/ Science and Academia
- WikiProject Earthquakes
- WikiProject Geology
- WikiProject Physics
- WikiProject Women scientists
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 is a good start and provides readers with a general overview of Dr. Jones. It's strengths include its organization and neutral tone. It's content could be updated and expanded to include more of her academic and public-facing work. The article has a completeness score of "39" - and I generally agree that while the article has some good content, it could be enhanced to reflect more of Dr. Jones' accomplishments in her field.
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: