User:AM UP Editor/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?

For my article I have chosen Natural science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

This article was selected after a brief period of browsing when I noticed that several of its sections lacked any quotations. Considering the importance of this article on such a foundational topic as natural science, which is the basis for much of our understanding of the world, I felt that further analysis was required. Despite, this issue overall the article was well written and included a cavalcade of useful information regarding its topic.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: The lead of this article manages to introduce the topic in a concise fashion that still includes all the necessary details to ensure the reader fully understands what this article is focused upon in addition to its major sections.

Content: Though there are debates on what is considered natural science none of the featured sections appear out of place performing an admirable job at presenting up-to-date information regarding its different subcategories and history though content on recent history is somewhat lacking. While it does not deal with an equity gap considering the range of the what the article covers addressing traditionally marginalized groups should probably be reserved for more specific articles such as ones on the contributions of scientists of color.

Tone and Balance: Overall the article is neutral without any apparent bias or attempts at persuasion. However, I am not familiar enough with the viewpoints held regarding natural science to determine if any of them are over or underrepresented.

Sources and References: Several of the sections of this article lack any secondary sources at all which is rather problematic. Furthermore, one particular source from 2007 gets referenced significantly more often than all the rest though considering it is in regard to the history of natural science it is unlikely that it is out of date though relying on it exclusively could introduce bias. Notwithstanding these problems the sources that were used appear reliable and relatively current.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is easy to read and to my knowledge avoids any egregious grammatical or spelling mistakes. Additionally, it is broken down into numerous sections that all make sense and improve readability.

Images and Media: All the images used were appropriate to the articles topic, were well captioned, and are laid out in a fashion that certainly not unappealing. Whether or not any copyright regulations were violated is difficult to say though there is no indication that these images were not free for reuse.

Talk Page Discussion: The article has been rated as B-class with little discussion in regard to how this can be improved as recent discourse surrounding this page appears non-existent.

Overall Impressions: The article features a plethora of well written neutral content presented in a easy to follow fashion and as such I would consider it to be a well-developed article. However, the lack of citations for certain sections remains potentially problematic with the addition of these citations alongside collecting new information from newer sources being the only changes I would make.