User:Cadenprobert/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 chose this article because of how many arachnids I have studied over my time in microbiology. They play a big role in spreading disease. They also are very prevalent throughout the world including where we live.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The introduction of this article is what really caught my attention. It is organized in a way that I would want to organize an article that I would write. My edit for the introduction would be to take out the sentence about the meaning of the word in greek. This is not relevant or connecting to the information to the paragraph that it is connected. It is slightly over detailed with how far it goes into breaking down the word arachnology. The second paragraph needs to include some imaging that describes arachnology as a science. This could include the different processes or even the different kinds of arachnids. The subspecies section could also include more pictures because I think visualization is the most important thing in identifying arachnids. The good thing about this article is that it has really good sources that do not need to be changed.