This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Readability
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because the subject itself is basic and clear to tell if there is bias, misinformation or not enough information on the subject.
- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the article's lead has an introductory sentence that mentions "ease with which a reader can understand written text" which is clear and sums up readability well.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the article mentions that there is "more to readability than legibility" hinting that there is more to come, but it does clearly define the sections or their meaning towards to article.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it mentions extensively on how programming code uses readability, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overdetailed and needs to have information like the list of factors determining readability found in the lead, placed in its own category.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The section labeled "applications" is not well expounded upon and is not the relevant to the topic. The information in the "definiton" section is marked "further explanation needed" and needs more detail.
- Is the content up-to-date? The content was last edited in August 2020, which is somewhat up-to-date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content that is missing in the definition and applications section. There is also citations missing in the "Popular readability formulas" section and "Early children's readability formulas" section
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This topic does not seem to address underrepresented populations or creates any equity gaps.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral? The article appears to be mostly neutral, it does not promote any formula or theory over the other.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article only presents the formulas and topics in neutral ways and only presents the research done by the scientists in unopinionated ways.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints presented by the scientists researching readability were presented equally.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article mentions "easy reading saves money and helps enjoyment" which can be persuasive in a way.
- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The information presented in the formulas and studies sections are backed up by reliable secondary sources.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources used came from books published by the scientists on their methods or books published by others discussing the methods.
- Are the sources current? The sources are not that current, most of the sources are 30-40 years old and even older.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The authors of sources are diverse, but there are no marginalized individuals' works presented.
- Check a few links. Do they work? The few sources linked do work, the rest are not linked because of their age and have not been put in an online database I'm assuming.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is easy to read. The article makes good use of list, tables, and charts to separate information and draw attention to it.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The article does not have grammatical errors.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is broken down in sections that separate different theories, formulas, research done on the topic, which makes it for the most part well organized.
- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article only contains one image of a man reading a book about Atomic Energy, which has nothing to do with the topic, and from what I can tell, he is not one of the scientists presented in the article. The image does not help enhance understanding.
- Are images well-captioned? The image is not captioned so no.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the image is in the public domain on Flickr.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The image is placed in the sidebar, which is traditionally visually appealing.
- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The convesations on the page were not very constant, and mainly discussed how to make the readability article more readable, like "making more concise and neutral" and "showing results of the reseach, not telling about it".
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is not rated and is not apart of any WikiProjects from what I can tell
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The Wikipedia page goes into in depth look at how readability occurs on a biological and mathematical level. In class, we mainly accept that readability can be improved through the use of font, word choice, and writing organization; but we did not get into how those subtle differences work with our reading levels and literacy. We also did not discuss much on how word choice and sentence structure effect readability.
- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status? The article has not been edited in months, and has not been identified as a good or featured article.
- What are the article's strengths? The article presents most of the research from scientist's well and has many solid sources to cite the information.
- How can the article be improved? The article needs to organize sections better, and develop a better introduction section as well as the "Fry readability graph" section.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the introduction section is poorly developed but once you get to the scientific section of the article, it is fairly well developed with the exception of some sections that need more information.
- 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 — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: Talk:Readability
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Readability
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because the subject itself is basic and clear to tell if there is bias, misinformation or not enough information on the subject.
- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the article's lead has an introductory sentence that mentions "ease with which a reader can understand written text" which is clear and sums up readability well.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the article mentions that there is "more to readability than legibility" hinting that there is more to come, but it does clearly define the sections or their meaning towards to article.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it mentions extensively on how programming code uses readability, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is overdetailed and needs to have information like the list of factors determining readability found in the lead, placed in its own category.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The section labeled "applications" is not well expounded upon and is not the relevant to the topic. The information in the "definiton" section is marked "further explanation needed" and needs more detail.
- Is the content up-to-date? The content was last edited in August 2020, which is somewhat up-to-date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content that is missing in the definition and applications section. There is also citations missing in the "Popular readability formulas" section and "Early children's readability formulas" section
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This topic does not seem to address underrepresented populations or creates any equity gaps.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral? The article appears to be mostly neutral, it does not promote any formula or theory over the other.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article only presents the formulas and topics in neutral ways and only presents the research done by the scientists in unopinionated ways.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints presented by the scientists researching readability were presented equally.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article mentions "easy reading saves money and helps enjoyment" which can be persuasive in a way.
- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The information presented in the formulas and studies sections are backed up by reliable secondary sources.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources used came from books published by the scientists on their methods or books published by others discussing the methods.
- Are the sources current? The sources are not that current, most of the sources are 30-40 years old and even older.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The authors of sources are diverse, but there are no marginalized individuals' works presented.
- Check a few links. Do they work? The few sources linked do work, the rest are not linked because of their age and have not been put in an online database I'm assuming.
- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is easy to read. The article makes good use of list, tables, and charts to separate information and draw attention to it.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? The article does not have grammatical errors.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is broken down in sections that separate different theories, formulas, research done on the topic, which makes it for the most part well organized.
- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article only contains one image of a man reading a book about Atomic Energy, which has nothing to do with the topic, and from what I can tell, he is not one of the scientists presented in the article. The image does not help enhance understanding.
- Are images well-captioned? The image is not captioned so no.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the image is in the public domain on Flickr.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The image is placed in the sidebar, which is traditionally visually appealing.
- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The convesations on the page were not very constant, and mainly discussed how to make the readability article more readable, like "making more concise and neutral" and "showing results of the reseach, not telling about it".
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is not rated and is not apart of any WikiProjects from what I can tell
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The Wikipedia page goes into in depth look at how readability occurs on a biological and mathematical level. In class, we mainly accept that readability can be improved through the use of font, word choice, and writing organization; but we did not get into how those subtle differences work with our reading levels and literacy. We also did not discuss much on how word choice and sentence structure effect readability.
- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status? The article has not been edited in months, and has not been identified as a good or featured article.
- What are the article's strengths? The article presents most of the research from scientist's well and has many solid sources to cite the information.
- How can the article be improved? The article needs to organize sections better, and develop a better introduction section as well as the "Fry readability graph" section.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think the introduction section is poorly developed but once you get to the scientific section of the article, it is fairly well developed with the exception of some sections that need more information.
- 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 — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: Talk:Readability