User:Reaganez/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article - Too Hot to Handle

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Too Hot to Handle (TV series)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose Too Hot to Handle because I think it's a silly reality show that can be entertaining every once in a while. It also has produced some major influencers like Harry Jowsey and has changed the plot of the show in recent seasons due to the popularity of the program. I wanted to see if the Wiki page for Too Hot to Handle had any mention of the media effects it garners (such as impressions of how to act in relationships or pressures to look like the cast members on the show do - skinny, petite, muscular, long hair, tan, etc.).

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The Wiki article for Too Hot to Handle has a great lead section. It's clear what the show is about, who the potential audience could be, and shows that it may be familiar to. The content of the page is clear, concise, and easily accessible to nearly any reading level. The article's tone appears very neutral, but does reference some critiques of the show and does not include much praise the show has received.

Most sources and references are clearly marked and cited, however there are one or two that are completely not included. Organization of the article is very well done, with sections marking new topics, dividing them appropriately and clearly. Had any viewer been needing to know about a specific aspect of the show, they should be able to find it easily. The writing quality, as mentioned before is great for all reading levels, however lacks some depth in conversation about effects of the show and aftermath of participants on the show.

The article includes no pictures or videos which in my opinion would be very helpful in explaining of the show - perhaps showing the participants, Lana, or the location of the show. The talk page has little to no discussion going on. There is one conversation about two sentences long about citations in the article but nothing more. It lacks elaboration and important questions about the media effects of the series.

Overall, the article is clear and concise, but very basic. It doesn't go too in depth on any particular topic of the show and doesn't include a point of view supporting the show. It also doesn't include a section on the media effects of the show, which could be particularly important as much of the show's audience includes teenage girls and young women, who can be highly impressionable when it comes to content having to do with relationships and body image.