User:ADecentNameForSure/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]The article needs more sources for verification, but has no content from our main textbook, which automatically makes it something I could take a look at. The article also mentions the belief systems of the philosophers, namely that everything is derived from one type of matter, but not the specific ways/methods in which it occurred they believed in which the book briefly touches on. Not sure I have paragraphs to add, but sentences for sure and I was running late.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article itself is very well and reasonably composed, but scant and without much sourcework. It was even considered for deletion at some point, but wasn't terminated. This is likely because there is only so much sourcework on people this old, and much of what we know doesn't come from them but rather from Aristotle. Some of the philosophers only have scant few sentences to work with, and could leave readers feeling unsatisfied. Getting to at least a small paragraph each would probably help.