User:Chckn nug/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?

Soul food

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to evaluate the soul food article because it is extremely relevant to this class. This article matters because it is highly informative and teaches about an important type of cuisine. My first impression of the article was that it encompassed a lot of different fields which is quite helpful when you want to do a deep dive into a topic.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section:

The lead section is pretty concise and it has a good opening sentence that tells the reader what the article is going to be about. It does not contain a list of the sections to come, but I think the intro works the way it is written because it is detailed and contains relevant information.

Content:

The article's content is up-to-date (2022) and is relevant to the topic. All of the sections are related to soul food and I cannot think of anything that is out of place or missing. The article includes information about several underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance:

There is no bias that I could detect in the article. The author has written a purely informative piece that had a neutral tone throughout.

Sources and References:

There are 40 references in this article, but a lot of them are links to other wikipedia articles. However, there is still a significant amount of research that was conducted from outside sources. The resources are not very current, with the most recent source being from 2017.

Organization and Writing Quality:

There are not many, if any, grammar/spelling errors. The article is very easy to read and understand as well as being well-organized. The headings tell you exactly what you are going to read and they are important distinctions in terms of the information that they present.

Images and Media:

There are several relevant images that are present in the article, but the citation for the images is not provided.

Talk Page Discussion:

There is a lot of discussion on the talk page for the article. One of the main points of contention is whether or not soul food is "black food." I found out that the soul food article is a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. It is part of the following wikiprojects: African diaspora, Food and drink, United States, Indigenous peoples of North America.

Overall Impressions:

I thought that this was a well-written article with lots of useful information. I think that a strength of this article was the Health Concerns section because it was something that I would not have thought about including, but it is important knowledge. I believe something that could be improved is the Dishes and Ingredients section because the entire section is just a hyperlink to another wikipedia article. Instead, the article could be linked somewhere else and the section should be removed.