User:Cstrate01/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]I chose this article because i'm a fan of crows! I chose American Crows specifically to narrow down this assignment. First impression of it was organized and informational! Lots of great images.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section:
The lead starts with a good introductory sentence followed by a semi-wordy continuation. The continuation just compare the American crow to other types of corvid. I find that this may be unnecessary in the lead. Overall, It makes no false promises of information and is easy to understand.
Content:
The content is good! The language is academic but not difficult to understand and the page is well organized. In my opinion, the West Nile Virus maybe didn't need a whole subsection on the page. Its up to date and has several science leaning sections to learn more about the species in that route.
Tone and Balance:
The Article remains neutral and factual. No heavy bias detected on my end. Yay!
Sources and References:
Many reliable sources and links to other pages. Sources books, articles, scientific articles, peer reviewed sources, etc. Most sources are up to date (2000s) the latest being 2023.
Organization:
The writing was easy to read, understand, and free of grammatical errors (that I caught). The sections it is broken down into are easy to understand and make sense with the topic! The only subsection I would take out would be the one about the West Nile Virus and perhaps mention it with a link to the page for the virus instead of a whole section about it on the page for American Crows.
The images used make sense where they are placed and are high quality. It enhances the learning experience and are well captioned so the reader understands what they're looking at.
Overall Impression:
It's overall a strong article! The information is presented in a user friendly way and makes organizational sense. Improvements could be fleshing out the taxonomy page a bit more, but its a truly well done article. If the WWII page is an A then I would rate this article a B. There is always more to add! Id say it sits at about 95% complete, but again this is just on one morphotype of crow!