User:Bodyisabladee/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?

Haflinger

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I love horses, and this article "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community."^[1] It is an important article in distinguishing this specific breed from others and preserves equine history and facts. I found it to be pretty in depth and well-organized, covering characteristics, history, and the many uses Haflingers were bred for.

Evaluate the article

Lead section

The lead section, while a little lengthy, still does provide a great overview of the most important points, as well as covers the article's major sections. The introductory sentence does clearly and concisely explain what the Haflinger is.

Content, tone and balance

The content is clearly relevant to the topic, and as up to date as zoological knowledge can be. The article is still being revised and maintained as of 2024. The article itself doesn't really deal with an equity gap, as it is about animals. It is also neutral, covering different theories of origin while remaining impartial to both. The tone is consistent, and no statements are being made to try and sway opinion.

Sources and references

This article has many sources, though most seem to be from the early 2000s-2010s. Given that horse breed information isn't too topical, the sources provided suffice, ranging from books to academic articles. A couple links don't seem to be working, but this may be attributed to their age. There are some random websites that are listed which can be replaced by more official sources.

Organization, writing quality, images and media

The writing is clear, professional, easy to follow, and well-organized in sections. The content makes good use of links to other Wikipedia articles, making it easy to learn more about other related topics. The article also includes several relevant and informative pictures to accompany the information presented.

Talk page

The talk page has not been updated in a while, as it seems to have slowed down in terms of new information available to add to the article. Even the talk page itself is organized in various topics that allow someone to see what discussions and debates have gone on about the article, such as terminology when it comes to the breed names or translation into other languages. The article is featured, rated FA-class, and is part of the Equine and Austria WikiProjects.

Overall impressions

I found this article to be well-developed and thoughtfully put together by the Wikipedia community. Minor changes can be made, such as reducing some repetitive information in the lead section and updating older sources and links.

^ "Talk:Haflinger", Wikipedia, 2024-01-28, retrieved 2024-08-30

[1] "Talk:Haflinger", Wikipedia, 2024-01-28, retrieved 2024-08-30

[1]