User:Cfellowss/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]S. I. Newhouse School of Public Communications
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]It's the school I attend, and I was told to choose a relevant article to my field.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article is overall thorough and informative, but suffers from the occasional lack of clarity. The first paragraph is a massive block of text containing all of the school's degree programs, which I feel could be left for the body of the article instead. There are also a few confusing uses of the acronym "SU" without an explanation as to what that means (being a student there, I'm familiar with it, but others may not be). Other than that, it's pretty in depth. The list of famous alumni is long (correctly so, in my unbiased opinion) and thorough, as are the degree programs and even various extracurricular campus activities that, while not affiliated directly with Newhouse, still are relevant enough to a vast portion of its student body to warrant a mention. No gripes with the sources, and aside from my above complaints, the writing is solid. At least a passing mention of the Haudenosaunee indigenous people upon whose land the school rests would have been nice, but I suppose it isn't that relevant to the rest of it. Nothing overly controversial, so no viewpoints to balance. There hasn't been a ton of activity in the talk page, but there's some interesting stuff in there. A 2014 edit changed the page from apparently sounding like a promotional brochure, and there was a funny spat in 2023 over whether or not there should be a space between S and I in S.I. Newhouse. Everything seems up to board.