User:Bellis24/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?

Audism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article to evaluate due to the topic of audism being greatly important, but not often defined or seen in my personal life.

Evaluate the article

A well made article which clearly and effectively defines the term, while still having flaws. Below are my suggestions.

• The lead of this article is brief, but well put as it offers a definition for the term "audism", an origin for the term, and when it gained popularity. Additionally, mentioning the terms evolution from attitudes and actions to the overall oppression of deaf people gave insight on the terms usability.

• Formatting

- I enjoy how the article flows from the definition of "audism" into the "types of audism" and ways in which it can be expressed.

• I would have prefered to have the "origins of audism" be explained before the "history of audism", but this ultimately is not too necessary to change.

• Content

- The content in the section titled "Audism in the legal system", did however have unnecessary information. The case of Magdiel Sanches is indeed a tragic case of police being under educated on dealing with deaf persons, but it seems to focus more on language access than audism (Personally, I feel like better case examples of audism could be found). Additionally, when referring to deaf women having higher domestic assault rates, the statistics should be clearly compared and not claimed without numerical reference to the values. The rest of the content however is supportive, topical, and up-to-date.

• Tone and Balance

- The article does a good job of maintaining a neutral position and avoiding biased statements. The article is able to provide some sources for information given and uses non-charged words when discussing the topic.

• Sources and References

- Sadly, the article does a poor job at citing some important details both in the document and in the reference portion. Throughout the article there are citation links stating "citation needed" because a fact is stated without evidence. Additionally, in the reference portion of the article references such as 17 and 18 appear to only be cited as a readings title and cannot be easily accessed by those looking to do research of their own.

• Talk Section

- The article has a talk section with dates from 2006 to 2018 and has made great improvements over this time. This section seems to be adamant on helping educating each-other and others on audism and the content of the article.

• Overall Impression

- I believe this is an incredibly important wikipage that could use some revisions and additional sources. I believe the content is strong however, it fails to put considerable emphasis on the audism in the educational system. The topic of audism expressed within the educational system should be better explained using both past and present examples. I believe that the current content is not bad, but I believe that the current content alone is incapable of covering an important topic as such. Through utilizing more citations, the additional of audism in an educational sense, and by revamping the legal section with a more topical case the article could be vastly improved.

- Bellis24