Jump to content

User:Nectaros/Evaluate an Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: (Augmented reality)
  • Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
    • I have chosen this article because it was a C-class article and I hope to help improve this article.

Lead

[edit]
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?
    • No
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • It is adequate.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
    • Yes
  • Is the content up-to-date?
    • Yes
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • I think the Possible Applications section could be augmented.
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
    • Does not seem to fulfill this based on quick perusal of sources and no mention of equity or inclusion in article.

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]
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

[edit]

Sources and References

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Privacy concerns section could use more citations.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • Yes, there are a lot of conference papers on the topic.
  • Are the sources current?
    • Yes, most are within last 4 years.
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
    • Unsure
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Organization

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? With the table of contents, it is understandable.
  • Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There is at least one comma that could be added.
  • Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I would rename some sections.

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Images and Media

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Most do, at least one is irrelevant or adds nothing.
  • Are images well-captioned? Yes, succinct.
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, most are just hanging around sections.

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?
    • Some phrasing discussion of statements, little additions to research/citations
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • Start Class article
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
    • No

Talk page evaluation

[edit]

Overall impressions

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • What is the article's overall status?
    • Start class
  • What are the article's strengths?
    • Beginning strong compilation of research topics in AR.
  • How can the article be improved?
    • Adding more citations to Privacy concerns and expanding possible applications / past applications.
  • How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
    • It has a lot that can be added, it seems.

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: