User:Arme94/Evaluate an Article
Appearance
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: 1919 United States Anarchist Bombing
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because I did not even know that there were anarchists bombings in the US in 1919.
Lead[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead is too brief
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is too brief and should include slightly more detail.
Lead evaluation[edit]
Content[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
- Is the content up-to-date? yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content all appears to be relevant.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? From quick glance, no.
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral? yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
- Are the sources current? no, but the topic is an old topic so they are appropriate for the article
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? They are as diverse as they can be given the topic
- Check a few links. Do they work? yes
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Organization[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes
Organization evaluation[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? a few
- Are images well-captioned? yes
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes
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? n/a
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is C-Class. It is a part of a few WikiProjects
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
Talk page evaluation[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status? The article does not seem to be contested and there isn't a lively talk page.
- What are the article's strengths? The article is well-organized with good information.
- How can the article be improved? The lead could include a bit more information.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is mostly developed.
Overall evaluation[edit]
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:Talk:1919 United States anarchist bombings#Add background/context