User:C.robinrcbc/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 have chosen this article to evaluate because it relates to the theme of ethics.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section: The lead does not provide a clear and concise introductory statement about the article's topic. The beginning paragraph just says that Good and Evil are a very common dichotomy and describes what good and bad is in certain cultures and religions. I feel like it's overly detailed in the beginning. What is written in the introduction should be its own topic.
Content: It says on the top of the article that the article possibly has original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I think the Theories of moral goodness section doesn't have enough information and could use more. Some sections have one sentence under it, and that tells me there is a lack of knowledge in that area.
Tone and Balance: The article comes from a neutral point of view. There are no claims that one side is better than the other and there's nothing in the article that persuades the reader to take a side.
Sources and References: There is a missing or empty url in the Notes section. I checked some of the links and they work. The sources are pretty current, I see that the years published go all the way back to the 1970s. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I don't think the sources are pretty thorough, I clicked on a link and it sent me somewhere that did not really relate to good or evil in my opinion.
Organization and Writing quality: The article is well organized and well-written. While I was reading it, I didn't see any grammar mistakes or spelling errors.
Images and Media: The images relate to the topic of good and evil. The pictures represent what the topic is talking about. The images are not very visually appealing, but they are well captioned.
Talk discussion page: The discussions are about adding things to the article and merging it with another article. The article is a level 3 vital article. It is rated as C class.
Overall impressions: I think that this article can use a lot of new edits. The strengths in this article is the contents and sections that is has. It just needs to be more information in some of the sections and it also needs updating. In my opinion, the article is underdeveloped. It hasn't been edited in years and it could use new information.