User:Yar sacul/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: World's funniest joke
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. it makes a bold claim and I wanted to test it. and it was in suggested.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? it introduces the topic but not very concisely
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes as the only section is the jokes
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes it has who coined the term
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it explains the concept well but not concisely enough

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes it is exactly what it describes
Is the content up-to-date? pretty much it was edited last 6 months ago and its not a constantly evolving situation
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? it covers what the joke was that won the contest but not its origins of the percent that found it funny.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? unintelligent people maybe but overall no it does not.

Is the article neutral? yes because it simply reports the finding of a study.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? yes but based off survey data
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? yes only those who liked the joke where represented but it was the biggest group that liked any one joke.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? yes it tries to convince the reader that the joke in the post is the funniest joke.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no only the primary LaughLab survey
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? the source is the only literature on the topic so yes
Are the sources current? no the survey was conducted 12 years ago and communal sense of humor has changed.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes and maybe this was written by an unnamed individual but many people have mane edits to it.
Check a few links. Do they work? yes they work

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes very concise and easy to read
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? not that I could see
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? it gets to the point quickly while providing context.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? whether new articles should be made for different regions of the world.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? it is part of wiki project comedy but has no rating.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? it has a survey to prove it's finding.

What is the article's overall status? short and simple
What are the article's strengths? it makes a claim backed up by a survey
How can the article be improved? take more surveys, take a survey in current day, make the survey more regionalized.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? it is underdeveloped but makes one point and explains it

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 — ~~~~