User:Monkeybomber/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: Encyclopedia
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I had no choice.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all of its points are backed up
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is definitely detailed. I wouldn't call it concise, but I don't think it's too much.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic.
Is the content up-to-date? Very, the talk page is very active and there are numerous recent edits. Most of the content deals with older material, but it has enough recent information to not seem out of date.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic to know if there's any information missing, but nothing seems particularly out of place.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article talks about encylopedias from around the world throughout history, from groups other than europeans, particularly the chinese, as well as wikipedia of other languages.

Is the article neutral? Maybe. It did seem to view the subject matter favorably, but not significantly so. It might just be a misperception.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I didn't see any. There were quite a lot of claims, but they seemed to represent facts about the encyclopedia, rather than ideological positions.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I wouldn't classify the information in this article as having viewpoints, really.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I'd say no.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of the paragraphs in the article are backed up with citations.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are fewer sources than i'd like, but the ones used do seem pretty hefty and reliable.
Are the sources current? Yes, the most recent sources came from 2020.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Most of the authors seemed to be male, but there seemed to be a decent amount of ethnic diversity judging by their names.
Check a few links. Do they work? Most of the links work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It's a little lengthy, but fairly easy to understand.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is. The sections are clearly delineated and each one contains different relevant information.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It does.
Are images well-captioned? Yes they are.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I do not know how to verify that.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I guess so.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are multiple conversations going on. Most are pretty short, the longest one deals with "encyclopedic" redirirecting to the page, but not being adequately covered itself.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as B-class, Top importance in the wikiprojects for education, literature, libraries, and works. For wikiproject wikipedia it is rated B-class, low imprtance, ironically.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't talked about encyclopedias much in class.

What is the article's overall status? This article seems very professionally written, researched, and formatted. It doesn't have very far to go before it reaches a relatively complete state.
What are the article's strengths? Its strengths are the ease at which it is understood, and the scope of the information about the topic's history and characteristics.
How can the article be improved? A bigger focus on how exactly encyclopedias have changed over time might help flesh out the article even more.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would call it close to complete. there's a lot of good work here.

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 — ~~~~