User:Wenqing855/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: Association of Architecture School Librarians
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- It is an annual conference and organization for art, especially architecture librarians and professionals.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- No, the introductory sentence is brief and without identification.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, the section dividing is good but description is too simple.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is concise, but needed more details.
Lead evaluation
[edit]The Lead only contents one sentence about the year AASL found and membership what are all presented in the following sections. The Lead even does not give a definition for what is AASL. More information such as introduction of the conference, the officers of the organization should be included.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes.
- Is the content up-to-date?
- No, the last update was on 29 September 2019.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Yes, some content should be added.
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is correct and good but more details and updates are needed. News of 2020 conference, resources from AASL sections may need to be added. More details in history section, the officers and committee section, and more information about the mission and services will be better.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Yes.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Mostly, but the mission part needs clear citation and evidence.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Yes, use "any" in Lead and mission part is kind of underrepresented.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The tone and balance are nice. More evidence provided in mission and lead will be better.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Most, but not all of them.
- 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.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Most of the references are from official website of the AASL. More independent sources need to be added.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- No.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes.
Organization evaluation
[edit]The article is well-organized and easy to read.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No.
- Are images well-captioned?
- N/A
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- N/A
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- N/A
Images and media evaluation
[edit]Images of conference or logo may be helpful but should think about copyrights.
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?
- No discussion.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is rated as Start-Class.
- It is a part of WikiProject Organizations and a part of WikiProject Libraries.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- No discussion.
Talk page evaluation
[edit]More talk is needed.
Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status?
- Start and Low-importance.
- What are the article's strengths?
- The organization is good and content is concise and correct.
- How can the article be improved?
- More articles resources from the AALS and from the conference of AALS.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- Underdeveloped.
Overall evaluation
[edit]The topic is great and needed to be develop. The bullet is well-used and content is concise and easy to read. More details and independent sources will be better.
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: