User:CMLeeLewis/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]Aside from its relevance to linguistics, I chose this article because the subject interests me and has been recommended to me by multiple professors in previous classes.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section of the article is clear and concise, and it does a good job of defining the subject. However, it doesn't seem very well connected to the rest of the article, as it scarcely even mentions the different sections of the article. That aside, the article is very informative and seems to be well-sourced; the citations all seem to be from reliable, scholarly sources, although there are places that still need citation. There is no apparent bias, and the article maintains a neutral tone. Most of the sections are balanced well with the others, but the 'History' section is terribly short by comparison and only really discusses the origin of the terminology, rather than the actual history and development of the subject. There are also absolutely no pictures or other visual media to aid with comprehension of the subject. Overall, the article is clear and informative, but it feels somewhat incomplete. It may help to expand the 'History' section to include more relevant information and provide better balance to the article as a whole. It may also help to include some visual references to help people better understand the topic.