User:Coloradostatestudent333/Evaluate an Article
Hello
![]() | 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]I chose to evaluate this article because this author is what got me really into reading and I wanted to see what wikipedia had to say about her compared to what I learn from social media.
Evaluate the article
[edit]When it comes to talking about authors, it talks about the in-depth of the books they published, they somewhat do this in the article on Colleen Hoover but, there isn't as much detail as there is in Stephen King's wikipedia site. No information on where her books were published and who they were published by when she developed more of a name in the book industry. Going back to Stephen King, he gets a whole bibliography on his life and that is just not shown for this author. There is one image and it's not even the best quality picture of the author. When it comes to her books, there is a list of all of her work, but only two of them are linked to her books.
There are also no relevant topics of how people look at her books, what their opinion is and what these books have done. Or the meaning behind colleen's books. There is so much more information that can be gathered for this site, as she is a very high up author. She has her own website that gives information on her books and pictures. Sources are being back up by links, the article is written well, but there should be more to this article for people who have no idea about Colleen Hoover or her books.