User:Bakeshutwait/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: Thomas & Friends
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have loved this show since I was a little kid.
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?
- It explains what the show is in good detail.
- There is a table of contents that lists the subtopics.
- It does not mention in a subtopic about the title change to "Thomas & Friends: Big World! Big Adventures!"
- It has a healthy amount of detail, but does not go into a little too much detail.
Lead evaluation
[edit]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?
- 5. Yes, it most certainly is, but goes into too much detail.
- 6. It has a good amount of information and is outdated a tad, but not too much.
- 7. There are several unlisted dubs in which the series is dubbed that are not listed, including the dub in Japan, in which Thomas 7 Friends is very popular.
Content evaluation
[edit]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?
- 8. There is very much neutralism.
- 9. No there are not.
- 10. There is that the show is popular, which is true.
- 11. If parents read the "Critical response" section, they might want to show it to their kids if they haven't already.
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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- 12. Not all of them are, although Andrew Brenner and Davey Moore (two people who have written for the series) have said how useful the Thomas The Tank Engine Wiki is.
- 13. I would say that this article does reflect the wiki page, but only so much.
- 14. The wiki keeps up to date as many people do a fantastic job of updating it. However, most of the citations are outdated.
- 15. Some of them do work indeed.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]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?
16. It is easy to understand as long as one has a broad vocabulary.
17. Yes, there are, but they are minimal.
18. It is broken down pretty sufficiently.
Organization evaluation
[edit]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?
- 19. The image is only the logo of the show, so it may depend on the person.
- 20. Sort of, but it is in a fragment.
- 21. Yes because it is a public domain.
- 22. I would say it is laid out in the way it is supposed to be.
Images and media evaluation
[edit]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?
- 23. I will say that they are very biased and disorganized.
- 24. Several C-Class WikiProjects; one of top-importance, one high, two mid, and one low.
- Top: WikiProject Thomas
- High: WikiProject Television, British Television, WikiProject Trains
- Mid: WikiProject Animation, Computer
- Low: WikiProject The Beatles
- 25. It is a very disorganized and biased talk page.
Talk page evaluation
[edit]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?
- 26. It is a very good article with plentiful information, although television is not the most relevant topic in the world.
- 27. It is very detailed and informative.
- 28. It could use a grammar check, an info check and a spell check.
- 29. It is pretty well-developed, but could use one to four peole to take time to dust it off.
Overall evaluation
[edit]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: