User:AJS2016/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

(Cyberbullying)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(I chose this article because I have had students in my school that have dealt with cyberbullying. As the mother of a 6 year old, being informed is important. My feeling about this article at first glance was that it is clear about what cyberbullying is as far as a definition goes and provides some examples)

Evaluate the article

Lead Section:

The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.

The article does give a brief description of the major sections. I did not notice any information that was not present in the article.

I think the lead it not overly detailed, I think it gives the information in a manner that is to the point and easy to comprehend.

Content:

The content of the article is relevant to the topic. The article is up to date, it was last edited on August 23, 2022

There isn't any content missing but there is some content that may not belong. Under research for preventative legislation there is a exclamation point next to words that say that the section could possibly contain original research.

Tone and Balance:

The article appears to be neutral, I don't see people's opinions in it. I do think this article focuses more on teens or older youth in reference to cyberbullying. It does mention middle school kids but there is more research leaning towards teens.

Sources and references:

I'm having a little trouble on knowing how to identify a second source and the questions following appear to be referring to secondary sources. I did click view sources and there were a lot of sources when I scrolled down but I do not know if that is what I was supposed to do.

I clicked on a few links and they did work.

Organization and writing quality;

There were some spelling mistakes and some grammatical mistakes but there were not too many.

The article is easy to read and reflects the major points.

Images and Media:

The article does have images that are clear and well captioned. The images are laid out in an appealing way. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion;

I did not find any discussions going on but I did find where it was asked for a source to not be flagged as a copyright violation.

The article is rated: WikiProject Internet(Rated C-class-High importance/ WikiProject Law(Rated C-class Mid importance/WikiProject Crime(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)

Overall impression:

Overall I think the article is well put together. There are many different sections so there are a lot of different things to learn about in reference to cyberbullying. I do think that it could use more examples of kids younger than the teenage years experiencing or inciting cyberbullying. I think there are a lot of things to learn from the article.