User:Kenzie665/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.

Name of article: Drollery
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I chose to evaluate this article because it seems like an interesting topic on manuscript drawings, but I think that more information could be provided about the topic

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, describes what a drollery is and when they were most commonly used.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Not really, it goes into detail describing the type of content that drolleries include and provides some examples that could be mentioned in later sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Not applicable. The Lead is the only section present in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- It is kind of detailed and could be condensed more to save some of the details on drollery content for later in the article

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, discusses drolleries
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Yes, the only content provided is the Lead which discusses basic aspects of drolleries. It could include other content like the history of drolleries and more information such as how the term meant genre paintings in the 18th century.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Yes, it briefly discusses the use of the term drollery for 18th century genre paintings and how this derived to some extent from medieval marginal images. They could go more into detail on this in a separate section of the article.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- The facts seem reliable, but it's hard to tell as there is a lack of citation use.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes
Are the sources current?
- One is from 1994, so yes. However, the second source provided is from 1954.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, the links within the article work.

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?
- The grammar and spelling looks good as far as I can tell. There may be some unnecessary use of commas.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- No, there are no sections. All the information is written in the Lead section making it too detailed. It should be broken up into more sections so that the Lead can be more concise.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Yes
Are images well-captioned?
- For the most part. The second image does not proved a date or brief description.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- Discussion on the singular spelling of drollery and whether it's "drollery" or "drollerie."
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- Stub-Class Book Articles, WikiProject Book Articles
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- The Talk page focuses on the spelling of the term "drollery" whereas we've discussed the use of reliable sources, citations, bias, and plagiarism.

What is the article's overall status?
- It's a stub-class
- It could use more information about the subject overall
- Needs more sections besides the Lead
What are the article's strengths?
- First sentence gets right to the point on what the subject is. Provides images that are good visuals.
How can the article be improved?
- Needs citations
- Needs categories besides the Lead such as history of drolleries, content, meanings, their use today, etc.
- The Lead is too detailed and needs to be concise. The excess information could be dispersed into article sections.
- More current sources
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- I would consider it poorly developed. It really needs more information on the topic and to be more organized overall.

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 — ~~~~