User:Yhan18/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: (link)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I am interested in the history of China and how the Chinese civilization came to be. I want to learn more about how science and civilization developed in a country with 4 millennia of history.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead describes the content and topic of the article in a straightforward manner and is easy to understand.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it gives a general overview of what the article will be diving into.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It doesn't not have any material claims or informations that isn't backed up by sources.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It explains what the literature series entail, the significance of it, and how the series came to be; overall the lead is not overly verbose.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. It explains the developments, origins, publications, reception, and criticism of the series as well as a providing a list of all the volumes of the series.
Is the content up-to-date? Yes. The last edit was only a little over a month ago.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I would know of as of right now.

Is the article neutral? Yes. Everything mentioned is based on hard data and empirical events.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. There are criticisms as well as acclaims found in the "criticism from scholars" section.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I know of. From the surface it would seem that everything presented is based off of empirical information and the sections that do represent viewpoints present several and not just a few.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Everything is based on objective, observable information.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Every claim and sentence is backed by sources like links and citations.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. There are dozens of sources from various authors on different facets of the literature.
Are the sources current? Yes. Some are as early as 2013.
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 separated in sections that with concise information backed by easily accessible sources.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
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.
Are images well-captioned? Yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes. They are well cited.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. They are not overly abundant or spasmodic and they serve to complement the text they are placed next to.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are some criticisms on the organization and availability of the volumes of the literature cited in the article.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated a start-class article under WikiProject China and WikiProject Books.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? They don't really discuss the content. They only talk about Wikipedia logistics and miscellaneous topics.

What is the article's overall status? Ongoing.
What are the article's strengths? It has very clear and well-cited information that doesn't appear to be biased.
How can the article be improved? The article's rated a start-class, meaning that it is weak in many areas and may need some work. I feel that the article is in need of more information on the contents of the literature rather than on its creation, reception, history, etc.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is definitely a work in progress, but the information that is currently presented is well-developed and of decent quality.

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 — ~~~~