User:BuMafluff8/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](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I have chosen this article because the Catholic faith is a subject that brings much positivity as well as controversy. Wether an individuals opinions on the topic at hand, it is important to understand the backbone of what the Catholic faith is as a whole. My preliminary impression of the article about the Logos (Catholic journal) Wikipedia article, was that it was short and to the point. The author wrote about what the Catholic journal focuses on and who the author was.
Evaluate the article
[edit]When reading the Logos (Catholic Journal) article, the lead section does include a sentence that describes what the article topic is about. My first thought of the article is that it is extremely short, it is straight and to the point about what the Catholic journal is and who the journal was written by. This article is not something that was written to be updated about information, since the original journal was published in 1997. The articles author decided to cover what the journal is about but did not go into depth about many topics in the book. I wish there was more about the contents in the journal but I do have to include that the author placed hyperlinks to what the index in the book includes. On the topic of the hyperlinks, the authors links in their article do work and send the user straight to the page which the hyperlink was titled. Like in the beginning of the evaluation, I mentioned that the article was "...straight and to the point..." and adding on to this, the article was also clear and became an easy read for me about the topic. The image attached to the article went with the topic of the Wikipedia article well since it was the original book cover of the, Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture. The articles tone of voice was neutral it had no bias about any topic wether that be the book or the Catholic faith. Overall on the Wikipedia page, the Logos (Catholic Journal) article was rated in the Stub-class and it was in the interest of the WikiProjects: Christianity and Minnesota.