User:Gempit/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.

I chose this article because it sounded interesting and I don't know much about space.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. It is clearly stated right at the beginning that the point of this WikiProject group is to cover some ground on space.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. Each topic is clearly in bold to divide each subject into major sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I believe so
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a little overly detailed

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. It is all about space
Is the content up-to-date? Yes it is
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't believe so

Is the article neutral? The article Is very much neutral. You can tell that It is all fact and no opinions inserted
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not at all
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No it is not
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, everything seems very neutral

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes there are several sources to back up facts
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do
Are the sources current? yes they are from the past few years or current
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes each of the links work just great

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. It's well written but it could have a little less voice
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not it does not
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. I really like that each topic is in bold because it divides the content really well

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes there is an image of a telescope
Are images well-captioned? yes they are
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I don't really like them personally

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? In the discussion section there is a lot of back and forth talk about certain articles needing to be involved
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes it is
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I chose a topic I thought was interesting-- not sure if I was supposed to choose one that is related to class?

What is the article's overall status? Really well developed
What are the article's strengths? organization is the main strength because it's neat and well maintained
How can the article be improved? the illustrations are a little distracting with the chunky black background
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it's really developed well with a lot of content and resources compiled

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 — ~~~~