User:Ebrown29/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]National Archives and Records Administration
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose it because it is the predominant archival agency in the United States (and our class is about archives), it is important because it gives information about the government agency dealing with historical documents, and my initial impressions
Evaluate the article
[edit]This article is overall very strong in providing an overview and details about the NARA, their mission, and their execution of that mission in the government. All of the information is backed up with secondary source citations, especially that which might be considered opinionated or controversial. Images and lists of archivists help to enhance understanding of the history of this organization, and photos of the NARA buildings and some documents aid in visualizing the agency. The positioning of this article's section on the Trump administration is not intuitive and feels to be over magnified given its relative importance to everything else laid out and relative to the grand points of the article.