User:Amb8675/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.
- Throw-away society
- It is related to consumerism and interests me.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, it does
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Also yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It appears concise
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead for the page Throw-away society is informative, but still concise. It provides a brief introduction to the topic and has a table of contents for the rest of the article.
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?
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content on this page appears to be relevant and up to date. Some sections do seem short, but overall it seems in the correct place. The inclusion of information of the Catholic church does seem a bit less relevant to how most people view the idea of the "throwaway lifestyle" and it was not very expanded upon. Plus, it seemed to specifically reference the Catholic sect of Christianity and not both Protestants and Catholics so the title seems a bit misleading.
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]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?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]This article has 21 sources and it is well cited throughout. The sources do appear semi-current, but they are largely from 2010-2015 and could likely use a few more sources that are more recent. the links do work and there is many different authors.
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]It is well written and I did not see any glaring mistakes.
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]There is no images.
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]It is very short overall, no discussions in the last 2 years and the discussions there are very short.
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]Overall it is fairly good, but it does seem to be short in some areas. I think it could be improved by expanding some sections and finding more updated sources.
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:Throw-away society