User:Brabblegreyhound03/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 I thought evaluating the page of a biologist would be informative and interesting. This article matters because it is a page about a biologist that does important work with endangered frogs. My initial impression of the article was that it was short, but there may not be much more information out there, especially when it comes to private citizens such as Badani.
Evaluate the article
[edit]- The lead section of the article is very concise in summarizing the topic. The lead sentence summarizes it well, but is a little long.
- All of the content is relevant to the topic of Badani's career in conservation. The sources look to be up to date, and there is nothing that strikes me as something that doesn't belong in the article.
- Article is written from a neutral point of view. The sections about Badani's conservation work are all informative and do not suggest a side to take on the subject-matter. No over- or under-representation.
- All information is backed up by reliable sources. Sources are diverse and there aren't any 'random' looking websites. Links all seem to be in working order throughout the article.
- The article is easy to read and understand, even from outside a science perspective. There are some grammatical errors that could be fixed such as double spaced words. Sections are well labeled.
- Images included in the article pertain to the subject matter, such as a picture of the frog Badani works with as well as a picture of herself. Images are visually appealing and properly cited. There is only one image in the body of the article where her work is discussed, but it is relevant and well captioned.
- There are currently no discussions about the article being held on the Talk page, although it is included in three separate WikiProjects.
- I believe this article is a very good foundation for a biographical article. It is a little underdeveloped, but I believe that it could be expanded with more current information and updates on Badani's work.