User:Cc20frai/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]Because for the assignement I have to do for my university course I have to make a wikipedia page about a natural park and I thing that it could be similar to the kind of informations we can find on this page. Moreover, the Alestch Glacier is a swiss Glacier that I know quite good since I live in Valais, the swiss region where this Glacier is located.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section introduce well the topic. There is a first sentence that describe briefly the Glacier and his size. We know from the begining what the article is going to talk about and there isn't any informations that the article don't develop after.
The content is clear and neutral. However, I think that the section on geography is a little too heavy compared to the others. It's very detailed and it's difficult to really imagine the place. Perhaps a diagram would have been useful and the number of names of other glaciers and valleys could be reduced. As for the under-represented subjects, I think it would have been a good idea to add a paragraph on global warming. The article mentions it briefly, but it's a subject that seems crucial enough to me to make a paragraph of it. Add to that the effects it could have on the whole of the Alpine environment, the flora and fauna and the people living in the region.
The tone and balance are right. The article is neutral. As already mentioned the geography is a bit over represented but that doesn't seem to be non-neutral.
On the subject of references, I think there are a few missing. Some articles don't even have a single reference, the article on panorama for example. The one on geography also has very few, as these subjects are not very controversial, so it's not necessarily necessary to have multiple points of view, but more references are necessary. As far as existing references are concerned, I've been able to distinguish 3 major ones. ETHZ, Swissinfo and PronaturaSuisse. These are reliable sources, but only Swiss ones. Of course, this glacier is in Switzerland, but the sources should be more varied.
For the organization and the writing it is difficult for me to really judge it because english is not my first language.
The images are good, as I said before a diagram to explain the geography would be nice. The article was graded as B-article which mean that the informations are good but further work is needed to reach a good article criteria.