User:.notMiami/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose the article because it is relevant to my field of study- Economics. This article matters because Wikipedia has an inadequate number of pages for the subjects like business/economics. So, I want to contribute to helping the Wikipedia expand the free knowledge. At first, the article seems well-developed, concise, fact-based, and purposeful, but then, the page requires a wider attribution and coverage of topics.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section expounds on the topic of Economic history discipline concisely. However, the article lacks the description of tools and technologies; and the theories. Despite their discussion in the lead section, they are not comprehensively described in the article later. The lead section contains a wide variety of topics, but more development is needed. Therefore, the lead is overly-detailed.
The article content is relevant to the topic and expands the academic field of Economic history. It has sections that provide details about the scope of academic study in today's world. However, statistics seem irrelevant in the lead section about world GDP per capita since this article is about the academic field and not the actual economic history(stated in the lead sections). Also, there are no discussions of GDP or GDP per capita in the lead section. The topic is undermined and underrepresented on Wikipedia and doesn't represent minorities.
The article maintained a neutral tone throughout, and viewpoints are free of biases. The perspectives are neither overrepresented nor underrepresented in the field. The page lacks minority viewpoints and significance and doesn't attempt to persuade readers about a specific viewpoint.
The article contains fact-based opinions backed by reliable secondary sources in the reference. And information sources are thorough, up-to-date, and hold information from a diverse spectrum of authors. Also, it recognised the opinions of the marginalised African continent and sourced in the article. The article contains information from prominent academic presses like the University of Pennsylvania and noble prize lectures that are accurate and reliable. Therefore, the page has a very concrete reference list and needs no changes. Links are functioning well.
The article is concise, clear, and easy to understand. The page does have some grammatical errors(for example, in the history of capitalism section, the first line). The article is comprised of brief, easy-to-read sections: however, it requires more detail relevant to the topic.
Most of the images and media are relevant to the topic and enhance its meaning, but the picture of the statistics in the lead section looks arbitrary in the article. Images are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright policies. Media are provocative and visual-appealing.
The talk page discusses expanding the topic to economic positions in different countries. There are many positive comments about sources and a neutral point of view of this article.
The article is a part of WikiProject Business, WikiProject Economics, WikiProject History, WikiProject Middle ages, and WikiProject European History: and is rated as a start-class article by these project committees.
This Wikipedia article has distinct headings and sections from the class discussions. It includes a large part as book lists from different topics that emphasize the article's main idea. Also, it has a small section named notes that we haven't discussed in the class.
My overall impression of the article is that the information needs more development and detailed expansion of topics relevant to it. The page's strengths are; fact-based opinions backed by reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and biased free opinions. Lead sections should be brief; the media, in the beginning, has to be deleted; more topics to include in the article: could improve. The page is underdeveloped as this article is about an academic field: therefore, it needs to discuss the scope of economic history in the future. Also, it needs a discussion of theories applied in the academic study as there's a noticeable consideration of it in the lead section.