User:Designetudiant/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?

Casa Batlló

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I had the privilege of visiting Casa Batllo a couple of times and it has become one of my favourite buildings to walk into. I was also curious on whether or not the information i learned from tour guides at Casa Batllo was comparable to the information found on Wikipedia. This article matters because Casa Batllo is a world-renowned building that is very popularly spoken about and visited therefore its representation on a site like Wikipedia is very important. My primary impression of it was that it included pertinent images to help the reader get a sense of its beauty and it was divided in many sections that facilitated the reading experience.

Evaluate the article

The lead includes an introductory sentence that easily sets up the topic to the reader without adding too much detail which remains true throughout the entirety of the lead. It contains brief descriptions of the content that is later divided into sections with further detail. I do however think, that more detail and content could have been added throughout the text as it only gives a basic understanding of the topic. For instance, I would have also included the Gaudi alphabet and how it is present on all the doors of the house and I would suggest to go into more detail on how the house is currently be used for and the activities that it offers. The content is mostly up to date and neutral however, on one instance, the writer speculated on the cause of a broken bulb even if it is not a proven fact. Other than that, it has no spelling or grammar mistakes and is organized in a way that is easy to read and comprehend. It is all divided into different and clear sections with subsections when needed. I thoroughly enjoyed how each room had its own subsection and image which helps the reader get a more detailed and clear understanding of the interior of the space without ever having to visiting it. In fact, images were very well implemented in the article such as the gallery section which further allowed the reader to feel immersed in the space. The sources were mostly from reliable and diverse sources and the links do work and are up to date. Finally, the conversations on the talk page have a lot to do with is formatting and appearance rather than its content. It was rated a Star class. In conclusion, I felt as though this article was strong and well presented ,however, I would have liked to see more content as I felt there's was some missing in places and it could have been more neutral like I mentioned earlier.