User:Falcon2023/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?

Toyota

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I choose this article about Toyota because when comparing the list of possible articles, I felt that Toyota had the most upside when talking about global climate change. They have the most upside because currently they have a big contribution for world pollution, but they are already taking steps to decrease this pollution with the introduction of both hybrid/electric cars as well as changes in production that will favor the emissions of pollutants.

Evaluate the article

Evaluating Content:

Relevance: The article covers various aspects of Toyota's history, including its foundation, growth, global expansion, products, and corporate culture. Most of the information presented is relevant to the article topic.
Distraction: The article is very thorough so there are a few distractions. One distraction that noticed was with the senior Leadership section of the article.
Outdated Information: Since the article was last updated in February 2023, there shouldn't be any outdated information.
Missing Information: The article is comprehensive and covers most of the significant events in Toyota's history. However, some sections, such as Toyota's social responsibility and sustainability initiatives, could be expanded upon.
Equity Gaps: The article does not seem to underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss Toyota's diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Improvements: The article could benefit from more citations and sources to support its claims. Additionally, the sections on Toyota's social responsibility and sustainability could be expanded upon to provide more detailed information.

Evaluating Tone:

Neutrality: The article appears to be neutral in its presentation of information. It presents facts and information about Toyota's history, products, and corporate culture without appearing to favor one position or perspective over another.
Bias: There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position in the article.
Overrepresented/Underrepresented viewpoints: The article does not seem to overrepresent or underrepresent any viewpoints. It presents information about Toyota's history, products, and corporate culture based on facts and information from reliable sources.

Evaluating Sources:

The sources I was able to test all work and do support the claims that were made in the articles. Also the references were reliable, with information coming from reports released by the company and also accredited information sites.

Evaluating Talk Page:

The Article is rated B-Class of Top-Importance with a total of 5 Wiki Projects. The talk page is very open to conversation and new ideas. I was able to note a lot of corroboration between the editors which helped the article to present more useful information.