User:Leonisa001/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: Dungeons & Dragons
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I play D&D so it holds interest to me.

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.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A bit too detailed.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it is updated often whenever new products are released.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It wouldn't hurt to briefly explain what alignment is in the Game mechanics section. They should also add info on new books.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does. It refers to how early players were associated with Satanism.

Is the article neutral? Yes, it is neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
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? Yes.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
Are the sources current? They are current in regards to what decade they were referring to (mainly quotes).
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it's easier to comprehend than other Wikipedia articles.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I picked up on.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but they could afford to use more images.
Are images well-captioned? Yes.
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? They are talking about creating a "masterlist" of articles relating to D&D, ones that won't be deleted.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's a level 5 vital article and is part of the D&D WikiProjects.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It doesn't.

What is the article's overall status? Complete.
What are the article's strengths? It talks about the history of the game.
How can the article be improved? It could give a bit more information on the mechanics and new products.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is very well developed, but it should add info about new books and such.

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 — ~~~~