User:Demi12005/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article

(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.)

Lead Section:

Yes, the lead section does have an introduction sentence. Yes, it includes where the place is located and also says who owns the company. No, this article is up to date and has all information that is still true to this day! I think that is is not overly detailed and has just the right amount of information about Kings Island.

Content:

Yes, the article is relevant to the topic. Yes, the content is up to date. As of right now, I am not seeing anything that is missing or does not belong. this article does not talk about why they had to close down son of beast. Which I would find very interesting.

Tone and Balance

I think this article is very neutral and I have not found anything that seems biased toward any position. I think that they could talk more about what rides have closed down and why that had to happen. also they could talk more about the new rides. Yes, I think that the viewpoint in the article are accurate. From what I have read I do not think that this article is trying to persuade anyone to favor one thing over another.

Sources and References

Yes, all facts from this essay are backed up with reliable sources and information. Yes, the sources are thorough and they reflect the available literature on the topic. From my understanding yes the sources are current and correct. Yes this is written by a diverse spectrum of people. They do include some people in this but there isn't many historical people to talk about when talking about Kings Island. Yes, some of the sources are from a long time ago. So, I would think there would be better sources out there now. Yes, the links work!

Organization and Writing Quality

Yes, I find that my article is very easy to read and that it is as short as they could have made it. I think that is it well organized and clear. From what I can see this article doesn't have any grammatical or spelling errors. Yes, the article is well written and organized.

Images and Media

Yes, the article does include some pictures and they do help understanding of the topic. Yes, the images state what the picture is. Yes, they all are cited correctly. Yes, they are placed after they would talk about the ride.

Talk Page Discussion

The conversations on the talk page was talking about how someone from the walking dead visited Kings Islands. They said that it was nothing too major and that it was still an event that happened. It is rated in the b class and it is in WikiProjects. This article talks more about in depth of my topic.

Overall Impressions

I feel like there is still room for improvement but overall is not too bad. I think the strengths are including every ride and what year it was build and what the name of it is. I think there can be more details about the camp that kings island had. I think that the article is well developed and is very clear and organized.