User:Fay.0373/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: Museum of Witchcraft and Magic
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- It is loosely related to the course I am taking about possessions both of objects and demonic possessions.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Fairly concise but the article is short overall.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content up-to-date? Yes, last updated March 11th 2020.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The history subsection is quite detailed but the sections on both the exhibits and reception (particularly exhibits) can be elaborated it with either further text to support the external links or even images of exhibits to add visual contexts.

Is the article neutral? Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No - both praise and critique for the museum are outlined.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is a slight alignment towards Williamson's perspective over Garner's perspective (the two founders of the museum).
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. I did not feel compelled to visit the museum or that the article was commercially inclined.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. - Some citations are missing.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. I think more research can be added to this page.
Are the sources current? All of the sources were published from 1999 onwards - so 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.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No major errors, some rephrasing needed.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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? Stub Low Importance, not part of any projects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

What is the article's overall status? Low importance, fairly written basic introductory article to the topic.
What are the article's strengths? The article has a strong historical focus that is chronologically organized in an easy to understand way.
How can the article be improved? Fact checking and more comprehensive details can be added to the article.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Under-developed. A few more research sessions and it will be on it's way.

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 — ~~~~