User:Editor0904/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?

Marion Böker

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I took German as my foreign language in high school, so I thought reading about Marion Böker was a way to learn more about the culture. This article is important as it informs readers about the efforts Böker has contributed to bringing awareness towards Women's Rights, including her active presence in IAW, the German women's council, and UN WOMEN Germany. I thought the article was good at providing general information, but was not thorough enough to be useful for a research project. The article listed the groups Marion Böker participated in, but did not elaborate on what exactly she did or how she became interested in activism.

Evaluate the article

Although the lead of the article is only one sentence, it meets all the requirements; it does not mention any information that is not present in the article and provides a concise overview of the read. The information included in the article is relevant to the topic and very up to date, considering the sources were published in 2021 and 2022, however the article could increase it's quantity of information about Marion Böker's background and a more in-depth description of her work. The read is neutral and does not portray the content or subject of the article in a positive of negative light. The article is strictly informative, rather than biased or persuasive. In terms of the sources, all of the links work and reflect what is mentioned in this Wiki article. Even so, these secondary sources do not provide a lot of information on the topic and would not be very resourceful; that said, better sources were available for the author to chose from. The article's organization is very clear and the content is grammatically correct, but the sentence structure is very simple which presents the information in a familiar rather than formal and educated manner. There are no images included in this article, which makes it difficult for readers to put a face to the name. The talk page does not include a rating and explains how the article is apart of WikiProject Women and WikiProject Biography. The article is unarguably underdeveloped. The information it currently contains does a good job of listing what activism roles Marion Böker has held, but lacks general information about her and her life. ~~~~