User:CSMicro4054/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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Carl_Plaut

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

The name sounded familiar and I can't remember why. after reading the article it was probably from his work in making vaccines.

Evaluate the article

The article has a concise introductory sentence. It does not go over the major sections. It has some of the common things Plaut was remembered for such as his work in vaccines or veterinary medicine. Overall the lead is to the point.

The article is relevant to the life of Plaut and to my knowledge up to date. I don’t think it deals with an equity gap as he is a German professor before WW1.

I can see many citations needed statements such as his family, a speculation about why Vincent’s work was preferred over his. I can see some biases in his favor perhaps put there by family or people still working at the microbiology research, so most are positive in nature. There is one claim about bias against his findings in favor of Jean Hyacinthe Henri Vincent due to post ww1 anti-German sentiments but it cites no source. I don’t think there are any fringe viewpoints. The article attempts to persuade the reader into thinking her was a good guy by including a story at the end where when he died, he left cleaning instructions to the cleaning lady to be able to safely destroy his microbial cultures with again no source.

I cannot evaluate many of the sources because the books are in German. One seems to be from an encyclopedia and a bibliography. The encyclopedia is a good source by the bibliography art and medicine is a weird website with old photographs, I can’t tell if it is archiving the pictures or selling the books. The sources are old because Plaut lived 1858-1928 so many of the sources are old and in German. Another source is a textbook from 2013 that is a good source.

The links on Plaut’s page work, some of them like the spirochaeta page have very little info. Others like Pasteur have extensive info.

The wording is a little clunky in some of the sections. I don’t see any grammatical errors or spelling mistakes. It is well organized with sections on Plaut’s life, family publications and notes. The article includes an old photograph of him in his lab with a simple caption. I have no idea if it falls under copywrite as it was taken in 1920 in the US, I think it is public domain now. It is a decent photo given the age. The article has not had any discussions other than being rated low importance and c class by microbiology, fungi, medicine, and biography projects. I believe in class he was just mentioned for his contributions, in Wikipedia it is a little more on his life.

The article’s status is that it is marked as needing improvement but is active to see. The article’s strength is in its story telling of Plaut’s life. I feel like I got a sense of what he was like in the story mentioned above about him thinking of his cleaner’s safety in disposing of his cultures. The article needs to be rewritten and smoothed out; it also needs to site its sources for some of its claims. I would say it is underdeveloped.