User:Alyssacgoins/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
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes - there is a table of contents
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No - all the info in the table of contents is present
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

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? No. It details the Great Books, and their relevance to society past and present.

Is the article neutral? Yes. It does assume that the books are great, but it is due to overall cultural opinion, rather than the author's opinion on the subject. The books are established as great, and this article explain's the topic's relevance and place within society.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. The article explores the meaning behind great books.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is no discussion of a movement against Great Books, but that may be because one does not exist.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. The article seeks to educate the reader on the meaning and relevance of Great Books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. In some places it says "citation needed".
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are always more sources that can be used; however, there is a wide variety of sources in use here.
Are the sources current? Yes. Some are from this decade.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. I had no problem understanding it.
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 clearly divided by topic, and it stays on-topic within these subsections.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes - one photo of a man reading
Are images well-captioned? Concise caption.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The image is stated as "public domain".
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. The image is not overly large or small.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are conversations regarding which books deserve to be admitted. There are also conversations about accuracy of information. A statement said to be made by an author appears to have more grey area than is represented by the wikipedia page.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is part of the WikiProject Books and rated Start-Class. This article is also part of the WikiProject Libraries and rated Start-Class, Low-Importance. Lastly this article is part of the WikiProject Education and rated Start-Class, Mid-Importance.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia discusses this topic from a different way it is often discussed in class in that online commenters are more open with their statements. I do not mean this in that the statements are rude or offensive. However, commenters may feel more comfortable bringing topics up that they feel unsure about in an online setting as compared to a classroom setting.

What is the article's overall status? The status overall is one of quality.
What are the article's strengths? The article is well-organized.
How can the article be improved? The article does have several spots that read "need citation". Additionally, the article's subtopics could each be more developed, especially the section titled "Television".
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article needs more information on each topic. Each section seems somewhat short.

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 — ~~~~