User:Madeleinevaziri/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: Tanabe Hisao Prize
• I do not know anything about this topic.

Lead

Guiding questions:

• 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?
  • No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It is concise.

Lead evaluation

The lead is concise but it does not provide a good roadmap for the rest of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
  • Yes
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • No, the last award winner listed is from 2011.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Yes, there is not much information beyond the winners. The content should include sections about the type of Japanese scholarship and musicology that the award celebrates, perhaps tracing the evolution of these styles.

Content evaluation

There is really only one type of content offered. There could be a more comprehensive body including sections about the type of musicology and how recipients have differed over the years.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• 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

Tone and balance evaluation

This is a neutral article.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • I don't think the winners are clearly cited, but there references seem reliable.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • No, there are only two references.
• Are the sources current?
  • No, there doesn't seem to be an update since 2011.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • It is concise but not entirely clear because there are a lot of parentheses that make it confusing and cluttered.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic
  • Yes but it could have more sections.

Images and Media

Guiding questions:

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • No
• 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

It would benefit from more media, especially for a music page.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions:

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
  • Most edits seem to be grammatical or additive.
• 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

Everything appears appropriate and helpful!

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• What is the article's overall status?
  • Good quality but it could be expanded.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • It's neutrality.
• How can the article be improved?
  • It needs more sources, images, and sections.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • It is not very complete because it only focuses on the names of the winners. More attention could be paid to the style and projects of the winners and how it changes over time.

Overall evaluation

This page has a good start, but it seems like it needs more development. More sources should be consulted.

Optional activity

• 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: