User:EditingDaily2023/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 it focused on artwork describing the history of a specific time period. I don't normally research artwork, and I though it would be interesting to edit an article that combines women's history and art history. Additionally, based on it's rating I figured that there would be ample material for me to review and evaluate.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
[edit]The lead section includes a strong introductory sentence clearly defining the name, artist, and time period associated with the painting. Additionally, the two lead section paragraphs provided a summarized overview of the remainder of the article. I would definitely say the lead section is concise, but it doesn't include any information not presented in the article which is good.
Content
[edit]The article's topic is very relevant to the topic. Even though the article's focus remains on the paintings description and purpose, it also reveals important context around the history of the paining and the history of the painter. In doing so, the article does deal with Wikipedia equity gaps by highlighting the contributions female painters made to cover the war in Britain and aboard. The article uses up-to-date sources and describes where the painting is as of 2023.
Tone and Balance
[edit]The tone and information presented in the article remains neutral. The author sticks to factual statements rather than speculative ones and chooses to highlight important faces without interpreting those facts herself. Especially for an article that covers artwork, I think it's impressive that the author doesn't make extrapolations from the paintings initial history/intent/objectives. By highlighting both Laura Knight as a painting and the history of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF), the article does cover underrepresented groups of people.
Sources and References
[edit]The majority of sources reference academic research journals of specific page numbers of very reputable books. Given the number of books cited for this Wikipedia article and the coverage of information up to 2023, I think it's reputable. That being said, there are places in the article in which some sentences lack a source or multiple sources are tied to once source. I think adding more in-line citations would greatly improve a reader's ability to identify an article's sources. Not all of the links work in the article since some reference books.
Organization and writing quality
[edit]The article is organized well and very concise, highlighting the most important information with a broad overview of the topic. However, there are numerous comma splices throughout and some sentences lack more significant grammatical errors such as "do so previously" or "three women and man".
Images and Media
[edit]The images are informative, relevant to the articles topic, and contain captions with important detailed information including the painting's dimensions etc. The first image is better captioned than the second image, and at first I was unclear if the second image was a painting by the same painter Laura Knight, or if it was a separate photograph taken by someone else. I think that more information could potentially be added to the caption of the second image to clarify that.
Talk page discussion
[edit]The article is rated B-class and is part of numerous WikiProjects including WikiProject Women. However, no conversations have been started on the talk page which makes me think that this article has potentially been edited by only one person. This could potentially make it less reliable. More conversations should be started to improve the grammatical errors and improve citations.
Overall impressions
[edit]The article is organized well, concise, and covers important information on an underrepresented topic with up-to-date, credible sources. To improve the article, I would first suggest focusing on adding more in-line citations and improving grammatical errors/comma splices.