User:Npkozlov/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.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The lead discusses professional and factual aspects of the show.
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? There is information present in the article that is not discussed in the lead. For example the cultural influence and critical response is glosses over in the lead if discussed at all. The lead discusses viewers numbers but not the reactions which were witnessed on online forums.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise. It gives a good overview of the article.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Yes. The articles content is all relevant to the facts of the show or influence that the show has caused.
Is the content up-to-date? Yes. As it is a fairly new show the article is very accurate and even speaks if the current future plans for the TV show.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Mostly the content needed is there. They seem to have forgotten the second main character, Love(the girl who is stalked by Joe Goldberg), in the season two characters list. besides that mistakes are minor or gramatical based on my knowledge.

Is the article neutral?
Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. They list the facts regarding the show. Very informative.
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. they list both the positive and controversial aspects of the show.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
Are the sources current? Yes.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. The article is sufficiently backed up by other sources. The discussion page is also well used.

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? Not that I noticed.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, they go into more details than I would’ve thought to for a Tv show.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Could use more. They have a couple.
Are images well-captioned? Yes. There are images of people who are discussed in the article.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are a few. Once about the portrayal of Peach in the character description and other about whether spoilers should be include in plot summaries.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Not part of any Wikiprojects. It has a C-class rating.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We did not talk about “You” in class.

What is the article's overall status? I think it is very informative and well put together.
What are the article's strengths? Has a lot of categories and includes information all viewers may not have thought of.
How can the article be improved? It could be when new information comes out as this TV show is still running.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well developed.

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 — ~~~~