User:Articles0405/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?

Ross River fever - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose it because I wanted to evaluate a smaller start up article as that is what I’ll likely end up editing on the assignment. This disease is important because the people who are infected with it can potentially get muscle inflammation and stiffness that can last years affecting their quality of life. My first impression of it was that it was short and potentially undetailed because of it though I considered that it might just be because there is not a lot of information on this disease.

Evaluate the article

Overall this article is ok. The lead of this article is short and it only summarizes points in a few of the sections so details could be added about the article to it though the lead sentence describes the article's topic and all the content in the lead is also in the article. This article seems to have some good information, that's all relevant, about the virus and it’s accurate though it doesn’t have articles newer than two years ago and some of the source links are not working so some of the facts mentioned in the article can’t be proven well along with that there are a few citations needed. There could also be more information in one of the articles cited. I found some information on the economical impact to Australia, a topic that isn’t even mentioned in the article. The information is clearly organized and written in a clear and understandable way and is enjoyable to read and easy to absorb. The grammar is good and has little to no errors in the article. It also remains neutral throughout the article only presenting facts and the sources don’t have an agenda beyond giving information on the disease as far as i can tell. There is no attempt to use media to enhance the content of this article and there is also little discussion on the talk part of the article and as far as i can tell there is only one message on there. The sources are all written by different people though two of them are from the same organization, the sources are all short, but they together offer a good variety of information. So, the article is definitely underdeveloped and from the history doesn’t get a lot of attention but what is here is really good but it’s definitely not a bad article but definitely not a great one.