User:Burd Up/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (Xanadu Houses)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- This page is about the Xanadu houses which the name sounded fun but this turned out to be a cool page about experimental homes and was built using computers.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes the intro gives a good explanation.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, that has to do with the popularity of the building itself .
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Its a perfect amount of information for an intro and is not to overwhelming.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, its very descriptive of the building and it includes pictures of the rooms in the building.
Is the content up-to-date?
- The majority of information was added in the 1980s but more recently in 2017.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There is nothing about the more current update of the building if there are any problems with the building besides energy consumption.

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.

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, they are mainly from the 1980s and hasn't been touched in two years.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, most are from a book though.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, it is very slim and easy to skim.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Some run on is present.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes its broken down very well and the segments are spaced well with little overlap

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- Just grammatical issues are present.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It was a former feature article on January 3, 2006.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- We have yet to discuss this in class and I'm not sure we will talk about computer engineered houses.

What is the article's overall status?
- It was a good read but its very out dated and it would be cool to see what it looks like today.
What are the article's strengths?
- The imagery is good with the interior pictures, the popularity section was solid, and the entire design section was very strong.
How can the article be improved?
- Update it to be more current. It would be interesting to see how the energy consumption has been solved or if any other issues have become apparent.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- I think it is well developed but not complete mainly because it hasn't been updated since 2017 and before that 2008.

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 — ~~~~