User:Tjc81/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: Scopes Trial
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose "Scopes Trial" because it is a popular example of how literacy can be stopped or halted due to personal beliefs of sponsors.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it gives the date, main characters, various names, and content of the trial.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? If this questions ask if everything written in the article is discussed briefly in the first section of the article, then no, I don't think the Lead encapsulates everything. For it fails to mention all the national scandal, ridicule, and general media frenzy attached to the case, as well as speaking upon the issue of children not being able to access literacy properly.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything said in the Lead is discussed in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it discusses the overall topic well.
Is the content up-to-date? From my reading of the article, all relevant information to the article is present.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Is the article neutral? Yes, but it is difficult to tell because the case was staged, so any mention of its staging seems biased (even though the article is neutral in my opinion).
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, it is neutral.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the article discusses both sides equally.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are many sources that back up any statement that needs to be sourced or cited.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
Are the sources current? Yes.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Sentences are spelled correctly from what I've read, and only a few sentences are grammatically shaky (just awkward phrasing etc.)
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, mostly in terms of putting faces to names. Though there could be more photos in the latter half of the article.
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.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Conversations concerning the honesty of court proceedings, as well as how students and children can easily be stopped from reading certain materials purely based off bias and prejudice.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes, it is a part of many, like WikiProjects TN, WikiProjects Law, WikiProjects US History, WikiProjects Creationism, WikiProjects History, WikiProjects WikiProjects Evolutionary Biology, WikiProjects History of Science, WikiProjects Education, WikiProjects Skepticism, and WikiProjects Alternative Views.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have yet to talk specifically about this event in class, but I think it does focus less on how the children were blocked from accessing literacy about evolution (like what we've discussed in class), and it focuses more on how the court proceeding went and how the entire court case was a publicity stunt.

What is the article's overall status? Rated B-status, from mid-to-high/top importance.
What are the article's strengths? Its sources and how in-depth it is.
How can the article be improved? Maybe the Lead could encompass more material, but I think it is a very good article.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? As stated in the previous sentence, I think the article does a very good job.

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 — ~~~~