User:BethT1844/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]I chose this article because Wuthering Heights is a novel I studied in undergrad, and the article is a "C-Class" article according to Wikipedia's content assessment scale, which means there are things that could be improved in the article.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
Lead section:
This section includes relevant information, and is a useful overview of the novel and its importance. However, there are parts where the wording is unnecessarily complicated (such as the second paragraph which discusses the order of publication for the Brontë sisters).
Content:
The content is thorough, and includes sections not only on the plot of the novel, but also on critical reception, influences, and many other pertinent subjects. The summary of the novel needs work, as it's a bit confusing, and sometimes lacks important contextual information, and has minor inaccuracies. It has a section on the debate around Heathcliff's race, which has been an ongoing source of debate for scholars since the publication of the novel.
Tone and Balance:
The article is neutral, pulling from a wide range of sources, and discussing multiple interpretations of the novel.
Sources and References:
Organization and Writing Quality:
Overall this is well organized. The sections are arranged in a way that makes sense, and it is easy to move from one to the other. However, the style is sometimes unnecessarily confusing. There is a heavy reliance upon quotations, especially in the critical response section where some context could be helpful.
Images and Media:
There are few images throughout, however, those that appear are all well cited and freely available in the public domain or under a creative commons license that allows sharing. The images provide useful context, and illustrate subjects being discussed, such as inspirations for Emily Brontë or pictures from various adaptations.
Talk Page Discussion:
There are discussions about unverified claims, Heathcliff's appearance, as well as terms used for Heathcliff's relationship to the Earnshaws.
The article itself is a level-4 vital article and is rated C-Class. Its associated WikiProjects, Novels: 19th Century, and Women Writers, are rated top-importance, while the third, Yorkshire, is mid-importance.
Overall Impressions:
Overall, this is a well done article, with room for improvements. I think the necessary information is there, it just needs to be formatted appropriately. The variety of sources consulted and the useful arrangement of the sections provide an excellent basis for this article. I think if it were proofread to make it flow better, removing unnecessary complications, and the summary of the plot were to be corrected, this article would be greatly improved.