User:Jeffdnguyen921/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: (Welcome to Republic City)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I choose this article because I have been an avid cartoon watcher, I loved the prequel series and I choose this article because I would be interested in finding more information on this specific title.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- No, although it does bring forth information regarding the topic it is missing critical information regarding the characters, players involved, and production.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, it gives a basic description and nothing that is further evaluated on later in the article.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- I think information relating to the previous series and the tie into the later parts of the series is missing. I also think the authors of the story are not present and that is important to mention. In terms of the episode itself, it is missing a basic summary and the premise in the lead itself.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- No, it is very short and missing a lot of information.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Although it describes the plot it mostly brings up previous events before the actual events, hence, not providing much information in terms of the actual episode itself.
- It brings forth information about the series as a whole and not the specific episode at hand hence not staying on topic
Is the content up-to-date?
- The information is up-to-date to an extent, I think it is just missing information recently like it was added to Netflix.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- In terms of information missing it is missing the production portion of the series and episode. In a previous article that is similar it shows information on reception of the specific episode, this article does not.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No, it does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Is the article neutral?
- I think the article is fairly neutral it brings forth facts and does not have much opinion in the piece as a whole.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- In the reception portion of the article is really the only biased part and is not really supported by facts.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- I think the viewpoints as a whole are underrepresented and does not provide the amount of information necessary that really represents the holistic approach of the topic itself.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- It does not really, I think it has facts maybe some stuff are saying that this show is greater than others, but I think overall you really have to dive in deeper to really see that position of favor.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Not really there were some secondary sources available but one of the sources is a questionable pdf file.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Not thorough enough they only dive into the short end of the debut.
Are the sources current?
- The sources are current to their time and are not current now.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- The sources are written by organizations and do not include historically marginalized individuals.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- 2 of the 3 links work

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- It is well written and consise, despite not having a lot of information it is easy to read.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No grammatical errors or spelling errors of major importance.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- It is sectioned out and helps with the flow that reflect the major points of the topic.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Includes an image from the episode itself.
Are images well-captioned?
- Not well captioned.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- The one image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- There is only one image so it doesn't add any visual value.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There has not been any conversation going behind the scenes on this topic, the last conversation was in 2012.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- This article is rated stub class and is part of a WikiProject on American Television
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- Not much difference I think it just brings up the community aspect as it is rated stub class and of low importance.

What is the article's overall status?
- Low importance and is not really updated regularly
What are the article's strengths?
- It is organized well
How can the article be improved?
- More information
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- Underdeveloped and needs more information to be nicely laid out.

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 — ~~~~