User:Norm1237/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: Talk:Electrical impedance
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because of my interest in electrical engineering and my thrive to find out more.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Yes it does
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes it talks about the main topic.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No it does not it stays focused
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- it is concise it straight to the point.
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes all the content that is found in the article is relevant.
- Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes the content is up to date, there are recent edits made.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No they're is not
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- I don't think it does, No it does not.
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?
- Yes they are
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes
- Are the sources current?
- Yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes they do
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes its concise
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No it does not
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes it is organized well
- Organization evaluation
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes in some instances yes
- Are images well-captioned?
- yes they are well captioned
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes
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?
- They are just explaining what parts fit and which don't
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- Yes it is parts of WikiProjects!
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- I don't think we have mentioned it at all.
Talk page evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status?
- It is very much complete
- What are the article's strengths?
- the articles strengths are that they make it easy to understand
- How can the article be improved?
- They're could be more explanations for people who don't really know much about the topic
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- it is well-developed
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: