User:ClemBloom/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?

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

In one of my previous classes we discussed the Lemon test and how it used to apply but no longer is used to decide in legal cases. The precedent that it set was overturned, but it is important to understand where the current precedent comes from.

Evaluate the article

Lead section: The lead section includes all the items listed without being too detailed or too short.

Content: The article explains the history of the case the Lemon Test was based on, but the talk page mentions some parts of the article that need to be expanded or have a citation added to them. It is mostly up to date as far as I am aware and is as content-neutral as one can get when discussing a supreme court case.

Tone and Balance: Supreme Court cases are not inherently neutral in terms of tone, but I think that this article does a fair job in making the information neutral. The talk page mentions some opinions from justices that may be missing, but they cannot add them because of the source that the information would come from.

Sources and References: The sources are as recent as can be for a supreme court decision made in 1971. The cases that have modified or removed the standing for the Lemon test are linked on websites known for their reliability. The transcripts for the case are also linked when the article makes reference to statements made by justices or by the plaintiffs/respondents.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article does a fair job at taking the complicated wording used in the actual case and turning it into something that is understandable to the average person. There are no spelling or grammar mistakes that I noticed, and the organization of the text is logical and flows.

Images and Media: The only image in the article is the seal of the Supreme Court, but this does not take away from the general understanding and meaning of the article. The image is captioned, and the caption is a link to the page for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Talk Page Discussion: The talk page discusses mainly if the Lemon test is still in use, and if it is not, what cases 'overturned' it. This article is part of three WikiProjects, Pennsylvania^[1], U.S. Supreme Court Cases^[2], and Law^[3].

Overall Impressions: The talk page shows that the page is rated as a C-Class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. The article has a detailed explanation of what the Lemon test is, how it was used, and the modifications that were made to it in more recent cases. However, as the talk page mentions, there is a lack of detail in relation to how and if it can be used in modern cases. It is well-developed in the places that discuss past uses of the test, but it is lacking in how and if the test can be used in modern cases.

^ "Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania", Wikipedia, 2025-02-07, retrieved 2025-02-07
^ "Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases", Wikipedia, 2024-08-13, retrieved 2025-02-07
^ "Wikipedia:WikiProject Law", Wikipedia, 2024-10-23, retrieved 2025-02-07

[1] "Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania", Wikipedia, 2025-02-07, retrieved 2025-02-07

[2] "Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases", Wikipedia, 2024-08-13, retrieved 2025-02-07

[3] "Wikipedia:WikiProject Law", Wikipedia, 2024-10-23, retrieved 2025-02-07

[1]

[2]

[3]