User:1x2y3z/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article edit

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (link)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/ICC valuations/Nashua and Lowell Railroad: Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/ICC valuations/Nashua and Lowell Railroad
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I wanted to find a article that relates to Lowell as it is one of the topic of the class.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, but I think it should also include a description of what the railroad is used for. Also, there is an introduction instead of a Lead section.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- There is a table of contents, but not description of the major sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The Lead is lacking in some detail as it should also describe the use of the railroad.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, all the information is related to the railroad.
Is the content up-to-date?
- It does appear to be up to date, but there is no current information about the railroad mentioned.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- It is missing information about the use of the railroad as well as some added details about its construction and who was involved. Some current information about the railroad should also be added.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes the article is very neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- The is no view points. Adding some information about the workers and people running the railroad's construction could improve this article.
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?
- There appears to only be one source.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- The only source is a valuation report. I do not think this reflects the available literature.
Are the sources current?
- No, there is one source and it is from 1929.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- NA
Check a few links. Do they work?
- There is only one link (to the only source) and it is functional.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
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 there are sections, but I think the organization could be improved.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- There are no images.
Are images well-captioned?
- NA
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- NA
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- NA

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There are not conversations. Looking the the history, it appears only two people have made changes to this article.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- I could not find a rating, but it is part of the WikiProject for Trains.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- When discussing Lowell history in class, we have mostly talked about the mills and the industrial revolution. This article describes a different part of Lowell's history.

What is the article's overall status?
- The article is fairly short.
What are the article's strengths?
- Its strength is creating a time line and clearly explaining the information.
How can the article be improved?
- The article should use more sources, mention current history, and reorganize the sections with titles that are clearer.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- I think it is underdeveloped as it uses one source, which is never referred to throughout the article. The source is not cited in the article.

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 — ~~~~