User:Closure53/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: Gospel music
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Answer: Gospel music is just something that I understand. I have grown up around it, and already know a ton about it.
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]- 1.) Not technically, there is a collection of sentences that sums up what the article is about.
- 2.) it is not clear that the sections are described but they are there in the lead.
- 3.) No I think that everything that was in the lead was more explicitly explained within the article itself.
- 4.) the lead could be more concise and leave some of the detail added to the actual article.
- 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]- 1.) The content was actually, for the most, part relevant to the topic.
- 2.) The content needs a little bit of refreshing and updating. Not all of it was accurate or up to date.
- 3.) This article left out some earlier information and occurrences of gospel music. It needs that added in there.
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]1.) This article presented a very unbiased tone, no opinions or preferences were presented. There really was no room for argument or opinion it was simply the history of gospel music.
2.) No partial claims were made.
3.) Other than some forgotten information no.
4.) No it doesn't.
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]1.) All the information seems to be backed up with outside sources, and there is even an "extra reading" section.
2.) Yes, they lead to more in-depth articles on the particular topic they are discussing in that section.
3.) Yes they are semi current (published within the past decade.)
4.) They do 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]1.) Concision needs to be thought on a little more in the writing of this article, there are some moments where it veers from its original path. However other than the times that it follows a different path it has a very nice flow, and is easy to follow.
2.) I caught no grammatical or spelling errors.
3.) It is actually organized very nicely, starting with the history, and then into the genres, and sub-genres, so there is a clear system to the authors thought process.
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]1.) There are no images within this article.
2.) No Images.
3.) No images.
4.) No images. visually this article could do a MUCH better job.
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]1.) There are alternate origins to gospel music, some other genres are discussed, just some information that was missing is presented in this section.
2.) The article is rated B-Class and is a part of several different projects such as, wikiProject Christian Music, and WikiProject Christianity, etc.
3.) There really isn't any difference other than I think there is a more studied atmosphere to the talk section of wiki than in class since we were just pulling from prior knowledge.
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]1.) B-Class I think.
2.) The strengths of this article is the fact that it stays unbiased and just gives history and events without opinions.
3.) It really needs some visual uplifting, and then it could add some information about the origins, although what is there is accurate I think that it dates farther back.
4.) I think that the article is nicely developed just not complete in its information.
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 — ~~~~