User:Cheerio2/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](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
We randomly chose the article. The subject matters because the internet is vital to the media industry and becoming more prevalent in many people's lives. It would be interesting to see how its role and influence differs outside of the United States.
Evaluate the article
[edit](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.)
Article does have an introductory sentence. The leading section doesn't include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead section has excessive details that are not relevant in introducing the article. Some of the article's content is relevant, such as information about internet service providers in Bahrain. However, there are some irrelevant content, such as the inclusion of the "Arrested Bloggers" section. This was not insightful to the topic of the article and misleads from the focus. The content does not seem up-to-date as it only references dates up to 2014. The article is not very substantial and is missing much content, such as history of the internet in Bahrain, internet industry, effect/influence on consumers, etc. Furthermore, its "Social Media" section doesn't provide the expected information a reader would expect of the heading. Because the article focuses on a specific aspect of a country, it doesn't seem like equity gaps is much of a concern. The tone of the article is generally neutral and there aren't any clear signs of bias. It lists mostly facts and statistics without any input of personal opinion. Most of the facts are cited by sources, however, many of the sources are not credible and some sites are not available through the links. Most of the sources are also not current. When searching up "Internet in Bahrain", there aren't many reliable sources that initially appear. Overall, the article is not very well-written. The organization is not easy to follow and very random in terms of comprehension for the reader. The article doesn't contain any images. In the Talk page, an article update is suggested, some external links were modified, and someone suggested that independent sources were needed to replace companies' websites. The article's overall status is C-class. Although the article has some good, relevant content, there is a lot of unnecessary information and still many aspects of the internet in Bahrain that could be covered. In addition, the article could be much improved with better organization of content so that it is easier to follow. To summarize, the article is not necessarily poorly developed, but significantly underdeveloped.