User:CUStudentFJ/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]Digital media use and mental health
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I'm passionate about owning the things that destabilized the mental health of humanity and society.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section & Content - First paragraph helps keep the reader unbias towards a specific side of the story but presents the idea that this perspective is still an active topic for discussion/debate.
Tone and Balance & Sources and References - The author(s) write to provide clear cut information versus general opinion. The article is supported by over 180 citations/references as well as links for further reading on the entire subject's directive.
Organization and Writing Quality & Images and Media - The article was a very descriptive read and didn't make it hard for readers to understand the overarching message. There were very little photos used to depict the article. However, this seems deliberate on the writer's part to help further the point that information based on facts should be written as detailed as possible. I think the author(s) possibly want to empower the reader(s) to look past flashy focal points and seek more depth behind the activities you do or information consumed.
Talk page discussions & Overall impression - Seems like the author(s) were very open to constructive criticism. A lot of questions posed by the original writer as well as new ones on the content they'd like to revise, consolidate, or create new. Very comfortable setting/article to receive information and as well as provide valuable perspective or text. The article clearly tried to explain all key points to readers who may not be privy to the matter being discussed, in addition to the cited articles. I appreciate writing that allows you to make your own decision by providing definitive information without forcing a bias.