User:Ttop kafka/Evaluate an Article

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?

(On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

Stanford Behavior Design Lab)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Assigned

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.)

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog

Lead Section

The article has a clear and understanding tone and is broken down into sections, history, context, implications, and popular culture. The article defines it as a cartoon written in the NewYorker and references to the complicated nature of being on the internet, specifically anonymity. The lead section is succesful because it defines the topic and gives a brief overview without getting too specfic.

Content

The content is straightforward and covers why and how this cartoon is used and describes its fame and importance. The cartoon was made in 1993 however is updated periodically today and the theme of the cartoon is still present today.

Tone and Balance

The article carries its neutral tone through out and cites often. This topic is not a subject of bias or controversy and gives respect where respect is due. The article is not attempting to persuade us but just inform us about the relevance of this cartoon.

Sources and references

Sources have been updated periodically from creation of article up to today, the last relevant citation being made in 2023. The links work and are from a broad range of diverse and independent individuals.

Organization and writing quality

The organization of the article is concise and short but without letting any important information out.

Images and Media

The article has many citations leading to other media but has two images. This is good because it shows what image is being talking about, and specifically when discussing images, having multiple would be confusing. The second picture is a real life implication of the article.
Talk Page

The talk page shows how others have related the article topic to other topics and has been reviewed and passed as a good article. The only problem being that it is short but that is not a requirement of a good article, only that it addresses the major aspects of the topic.

Overall ImpressionsThe article is good and concise and explains what the topic is and its implications. I would maybe connect this article with other cartoons about the internet or topics concerning about how the internet is a bubble. This article is well developed however and any external information might be too overwhelming for the topic and would draw away from explaining it.

Stanford Behavior Design Lab

Lead Section

The lead section was very poorly written. There was a disclaimer at the top, but I did not think that it meant it wouldn't be cohesive at all. It was fact spitting without explaining it. It was made in 2022 but has not been updated at all. There are no images associated anywhere and they claim to be apart of a prestigious university; the article seems untrustworthy.

Content

The content began with its history but when diving into the concepts it was very source less. It name dropped a few things but it jumped around from year to year. There was only one content section saying History and the article has not been updated since 2021. It talks about how Instagram was brainstormed there but had no insight on what it really did. Some of the links did not work but one linked to the actual website for it on stanford.edu and it was much more cohesive and understandable.

Tone and Balance

The tone was bias in favor of the lab and was not very descriptive and informative. It only mentions the achievements of the lab and seems like a persuasion even though its supposed to be explaining what the lab does. The article mentions B J Fogg but under represents him. It says originally founded but never mentions who "found" it again. In the stanford.edu it mentions that he still runs it and is based on his teachings. The tone of the article makes it difficult to read and does not get to the root of the lab.

Sources and references

Some of the links on the article do not work and they all seem from the same place. The ones that do work take you to broad websites and not the source of where it came from. One page mentioning "people' takes you to a lorem lipsum page which is just autofill mumbo jumbo.

Organization and writing quality

The article is not well organized and split into an introductory and history section. It is difficult to read and jumps from topic to topic.

Images and Media

There is no images anywhere which would be helpful to explain or backup there points with a visual aid. Without images the article is left bland and questionable.

Talk Page

There is no talk page at all which puts the impression of is this legit or not. It also seems that no one is interested in the topic and no change has been made and that the article is written by one person who does not want to open wikipedia anymore.

Overall Impressions

This article gives wikipedia a poor representation. It seems like chatGPT doing a horrible job explaining a topic and giving random and fake sources. The article mentions this lab does some important and interesting tasks but does not dive deep in it. The message is it strength but it is not expressed enough. The article does not seem updated from its conception and it could be improved by outside sources and breaking the content into sections, expanding on its current thoughts and adding pictures.

Antwerp Six

Lead Section

The lead section is very brief, it says that the antwerp six where a group of belgian designers who "trained" between 1980-1981 under linda loppa and they got this name after making an impact in "a London Tradeshow". And that is all in the lead section. I feel this could be elaborated on. Doing a quick check I found other sources with different sayings for example instead of tradeshow it said Designer Show. There is definitely some information to unpack like the school they trained at and who linda loppa is.

Content

The Content consist of a "history section" which practically just repeats the lead section and then half of the content is dedicated to another designer NOT in the Antwerp six but who is also from the area and has more global fame. The content is brief and the part about Margiela should be exited out or actually have some info on the Antwerp six. It could definitely be split up into multiple sections even with a short background on each designer and a background on the school and who the teacher is and links to connect to other pages and ideas because fashion is very connected. And many designers worked for this or him/her and same with teachers.

Tone and Balance

The tone was fairly neutral and didnt have enough content to be impactful if it was bias or not Sources and references

The two...sources seem legit one being a NYT article. But there is and could be a lot more added into this section. Organization and writing quality

It was not necessarily poor and I guess you can say it is organized but there is not much. only comment is instead of the lead, a block for members , and a short history section; you could flip history with member block so it could be visually more appealing. Images and Media

None. Would be useful to picture the people and there collection that made them popular. Talk Page

someone commented margiela was not in antwerp six so it would be weird if this in the past said he is and then someone edited it out but didnt update content in article either. Overall Impressions

Potential for edit? yes. A good article to know about Antwerp six or even some links to get there, not so much.