User:CleanBean/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?

I am evaluating an article on Sleepwalking (Sleepwalking)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to review this article because of a recent interest I have developed. It is still such a mystery to all and that factor keeps me interested; there are still many things to discover about sleepwalking.

Evaluate the article

With the limited amount of knowledge I had of this topic, I read this article with the intention of learning something new. The introductory paragraph did a good job describing what sleepwalking is and during what stage of sleep, it's more prominent in. The lead section was straightforward and gave enough information to gain general knowledge. In view of the basic descriptions given, the lead did not propose the different topics that will be spoken about later on.

The article had even distributions of information given in different topics. Each section dove deeper into the known analysis of sleepwalking and how its knowledge progressed over the years. The article presented the reports in an even and neutral tone; almost like a professor/teacher presenting a new topic/lesson to their class. It had the feeling of reading a book about sleepwalking and all that's been discovered about it. It doesn't try to argue why one theory is more plausible than the other. It simply presents both sides and positively describe how and why those theories had evolved.

The citations provided are a mix of old and recent studies performed on sleepwalking. The diversity in the resources, allowed the article to have a sense of "flow" throughout it. It allows the reader to know of previous research along with being updated by recent ones. Embedded links and citation links still work and direct you to an appropriate page, if you seek more information or validation. The article is written well, but some sentences extend beyond their limits and are a little difficult to read. These sentences aren't used commonly, but can be spotted throughout. The organization gives the reader enough material that is digestible; lots of information fed in small portions. The images used in the article do not take away nor contribute the article's ability to convey information.

At the time of this review, the Talk page is silent but scrolling through, it seems that it was very active in the developing stages. Many users had made contributions and suggested different kinds of editing, some of which have been kept. Everyone seemed respectful of each other's ideas and contributions. Overall, I really enjoyed this article. It is well-developed, but also has some room for improvement. It has a great way of reporting facts in sections that are easy to understand. And now with this newly obtained knowledge, I am really interested in current research and findings of sleepwalking.