User:MaverickG34/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an Article Questions:

Lead:

A good lead section define 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.

Questions about Lead:

1.     Does the lead include an introduction sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic?

Yes, it includes when the shooting happens, who was involved, where it happened, and how it ended.

2.    Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major sections?

No. One of the main sections is about the shooter, John Bedell, and his life like where he went to college and he suffered from bipolar disorder, both of which are not mentioned in the lead. Another main section is the response to the shooting which isn’t included either.

3.    Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn’t)

No it doesn’t. All the information is in the article

4.    Is the lead concise, or is it overly detailed?

It is concise and provides the relevant details of the event

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.

Questions about Content:

1.     Is the article’s content relevant to the topic?

Some of the content isn’t relevant to the topic. In the political view subsection of Bedell, some information included is an arrest for growing cannabis and how he made some computer programs.

2.    Is the content up to date?

Most of the sources are from 2010 and since the topic was simple it didn’t need a lot of content, so I would assume it’s up to date.

3.    Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The information about his arrest for growing cannabis doesn’t belong and the information about a proposal he had on Google code and a Linux distribution he created.

4.    Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia‘s equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No

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.

Questions about Tone and Balance:

1.     Is the article neutral?

Yes. There’s no content that seems empathetic to the shooter or the police officers involved in the shooting.

2.    Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No

3.    Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?

There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented

4.    Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

No

5.    Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No. It just provides information about the shooting and the shooter

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.

Questions about Sources and References:

1.     Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

One source was Bedell’s profile on LinkedIn. NBC News and CNN both covered the event and were listed as sources.

2.    Are the sources thorough – i.e., do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Some of the sources reflect on the step-by-step of how the event occurred and they have some quotes from the police officers involved/

3.    Are the sources current?

The shooting happened in 2010, so naturally the sources won’t be current as it happened over 13 years ago

4.    Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?

There are sources from a diverse spectrum of news sites.

5.    Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

no

6.    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.)

The best source I could find was a small article archived from the FBI’s website.

7.    Check a few links. Do they work?

Most of them work and are archived and accessible

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing should be clear and professional; the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Questions for Organization and Writing Quality

1.     Is the article well written – i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy-to-read?

Since it’s short, it is fairly easy to read though it is not fully focused on thing

2.    Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

None that are really bad or obvious

3.    Is the article well-organized – i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is broken down into sections talking about the shooting, some background info about Bedell and his hatred towards the government, and the response to the shooting.

Images and Media:

1.     Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

It only includes the photo from Bedell’s drivers license

2.    Are images well captioned?

The caption says “Driver’s license photo of Bedell” so I would say it’s well captioned

3.    Do all images adhere to Wikipedia ‘s copyright regulations?

Yes

4.    Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

yes

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.

Questions for Talk Page Discussion:

1.     What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Some conversations in the talk page include if they should name the event after him or not, the quality of driver’s license picture and whether it’s copyright or not and that they should use his facebook picture instead. They also talk about his beliefs.

2.    How is the article rated?

It is rated of low-importance

3.    Is it a part of any wiki projects?

It is a part of eight different WikiProjects

Overall Impressions

Questions for Overall Impressions:

1.     What is the article ‘s overall status?

C-Class

2.    What are the article’s strengths?

The research done and the information used from them

3.    How can the article be improved?

I don’t think there is much to improve upon

4.    How would you assess the article’s completeness – i.e. is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Properly developed with the all the information you can probably get from the sources

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.

Which article are you evaluating?

2010 Pentagon shooting

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 never heard about it and it caught my interest

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.)