Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: It's a series I personally enjoy and I hope that my evaluation makes its page stronger and more accessible
Lead
Guiding questions
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
yes (contents table)
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
no
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Could perhaps be a bit more concise, but overall pretty solid.
Lead evaluation
Content
Guiding questions
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Yes
Is the content up-to-date?
Yes! Some really new info about the reboot has already been added
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
The controversey section kind of fails to give credence to Indian dissatisfaction with how Gandhi was portrayed, possibly due to a lack of information available. We know that there was outrage, but it could have been helpful to include specific scenes with episode numbers of where offensive depictions occurred.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Not really, unless you want to count the less than ideal depiction of gay characters on the show.
Content evaluation
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions
Is the article neutral?
Clearly written by fans, but still manages to stay relatively nuetral
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
They mention Clone High's 'cult following' but they don't really have evidence to support that claim. They link to the article on a cult following which is great, but it would be nice to see some article acknwledging the fanbase cited there.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Not particularly, most are based directly on the show's episodes.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
It may lean them toward liking the show, but the show's content is also largely appealing so I can't say I find that to be an issue of neutrality.
Tone and balance evaluation
Sources and References
Guiding questions
Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Mostly yes, some appear to not be but only due to a lack of reliable sourcing for this info (e.g. having a cult following)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Yes certainly.
Are the sources current?
Yes where relevant
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Not really but it's also not a well covered topic
Check a few links. Do they work?
Yes
Sources and references evaluation
Organization
Guiding questions
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
Organization evaluation
Images and Media
Guiding questions
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?
Under fair use they should be fine, however the talk page has pointed out the fair use is a bit questionable
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
There could be more, or larger, but it's fine
Images and media evaluation
Checking the talk page
Guiding questions
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
LOTS! There have been a ton of cool edits made since inception, and some nice action items to work on such as the 'controversy' section
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
C-level article, not that I could find
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
We have not talked about it in class.
Talk page evaluation
Overall impressions
Guiding questions
What is the article's overall status?
I think it's good! Just not super well researched as it's more of a pop culture phenomenon
What are the article's strengths?
The way it adheres to the shows canon, the in depth descriptions of each episode, the character list
How can the article be improved?
more sources for some statements (if possible) regarding followings and controversies.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Well developed, especially for the content matter
Overall evaluation
Optional activity
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
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: It's a series I personally enjoy and I hope that my evaluation makes its page stronger and more accessible
Lead
Guiding questions
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
yes (contents table)
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
no
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Could perhaps be a bit more concise, but overall pretty solid.
Lead evaluation
Content
Guiding questions
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Yes
Is the content up-to-date?
Yes! Some really new info about the reboot has already been added
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
The controversey section kind of fails to give credence to Indian dissatisfaction with how Gandhi was portrayed, possibly due to a lack of information available. We know that there was outrage, but it could have been helpful to include specific scenes with episode numbers of where offensive depictions occurred.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Not really, unless you want to count the less than ideal depiction of gay characters on the show.
Content evaluation
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions
Is the article neutral?
Clearly written by fans, but still manages to stay relatively nuetral
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
They mention Clone High's 'cult following' but they don't really have evidence to support that claim. They link to the article on a cult following which is great, but it would be nice to see some article acknwledging the fanbase cited there.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Not particularly, most are based directly on the show's episodes.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
It may lean them toward liking the show, but the show's content is also largely appealing so I can't say I find that to be an issue of neutrality.
Tone and balance evaluation
Sources and References
Guiding questions
Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Mostly yes, some appear to not be but only due to a lack of reliable sourcing for this info (e.g. having a cult following)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Yes certainly.
Are the sources current?
Yes where relevant
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Not really but it's also not a well covered topic
Check a few links. Do they work?
Yes
Sources and references evaluation
Organization
Guiding questions
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
Organization evaluation
Images and Media
Guiding questions
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?
Under fair use they should be fine, however the talk page has pointed out the fair use is a bit questionable
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
There could be more, or larger, but it's fine
Images and media evaluation
Checking the talk page
Guiding questions
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
LOTS! There have been a ton of cool edits made since inception, and some nice action items to work on such as the 'controversy' section
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
C-level article, not that I could find
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
We have not talked about it in class.
Talk page evaluation
Overall impressions
Guiding questions
What is the article's overall status?
I think it's good! Just not super well researched as it's more of a pop culture phenomenon
What are the article's strengths?
The way it adheres to the shows canon, the in depth descriptions of each episode, the character list
How can the article be improved?
more sources for some statements (if possible) regarding followings and controversies.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Well developed, especially for the content matter
Overall evaluation
Optional activity
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