User:Cwebb2023/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](Provide a link to the article here.) Mendelian inheritance
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.) I chose this article because it is what we discussed in class most recently, so I needed to refresh my memory on the topic anyway. It was informational and not overwhelming from the first skim through.
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.) The lead section has some of the important items discussed above except a summary/breakdown of each topic that is discussed on the page. It seems like more of an introduction paragraph to the history of the topic, rather than an introductory paragraph for the page as a whole. It is hard to rate the content since I am attempting to familiarize myself on the topic, rather than viewing it as an expert. It seems to have some good general information, however, I feel as though it is likely missing some more detailed information that could be beneficial to the reader. The tone and balance of the article seem neutral and not persuasive. Every paragraph/sentence is not referenced throughout, although some of it is general knowledge being discussed by the author. There are plenty of reliable sources and references listed throughout and they are accessible when they are clicked on. The article has good, understandable organization and writing quality. The images and media seem to be inserted properly. The talk page does contain a lot of edits and discussion regarding things that are missing in the article. It isn't rated too well overall (c-class and mostly low importance). After skimming the Talk Page discussions, I learned that my initial assumption was correct - I believe this article is lacking a lot more detail and important information. It is written with clear, concise language, much of which just needs expanded upon. I would say it's somewhat underdeveloped.