User:M.n.painter/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.) America's Funniest Home Videos

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) I chose this article because I am familiar with the topic, and I can easily understand what may be important when evaluating it (what should or should not be included etc.). It matters because the general audience may want to get a better understanding about the show considering how popular it is and how it has evolved over time. My first impression was that the article was a good brief overview of the subject. Just scanning the topic, it appears to present facts in a well written manner.

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.)

Lead Section: When evaluating the article, I found that the lead section introduced the topic clearly. However, the section was lengthy and did not hit on some of the later points in the article. It mainly focused on the history and various different hosts of the show. It did not state any information that was not mentioned in the article though.

Content: I thought the content overall was not terrible. The article was somewhat relevant and up-to-date. I believe there could have been more content added to fully grasp the idea of the show. For example, making a paragraph just about the videos themselves that were presented on the show. The content does not deal with or address topics about historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral, and I did not find an instance where it was trying to persuade me as a reader or push any certain idea about the show.

Sources and References: This is where, after doing some looking, I found some flaws with the article. It uses some reliable references such as reliable newspaper article, but the article also has some less reliable sources. For example one of the references that was used was from Twitter. Most of the article has references, yet they are just not the best source of information. Rather than doing a random search, it would be better to go to an online library of peer-reviewed article about the various topics in this article.

Organization and Writing Quality: I thought the writing quality was okay. There were not any grammatical errors that jumped out, and it was easy to read and understand. Personally, I would change the organization of the page. I would try to better order the main points so the article was more fluent.

Images and Media: The images presented were well placed and adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The captions were concise, but they also described the picture accurately. I thought this part of the article was well done.

Talk Page Discussion: This is what threw me off a little bit. In the talk page there was only talk of certain aspects of the show that people thought were "staged." The content of the page was not based on what could be done to better the article, and I thought that odd. The last edit was made in 2007 as well.

Overall Impressions: The article is overall a C-grade. I believe this article to be a good overview of the show for casual readers, but with that, there are aspects that could be improved upon to get a deeper understanding of the topic. The article's biggest shortcomings were its lead section, sources, and talk page discussion. It also could have provided more information about the videos in the actual show as well. The articles content however was well written, the media presented was accurate, and the article was not biased.