User:Free est/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?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I thought that it sounded interesting and I had no idea what philately was before reading it, and it turned out to be an important historical overview of what the philately project is and what the lost art of philately and stamp collecting are.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of this article looks good. It is very concise and each sentence is valuable and to the point with no straying from the main topic or key points. The lead includes all of the desired attributes of a quality lead as outlined by wikipedia, however it does not appear to include a description of the articles main sections.

The content of the article seems to cover all the important aspects of philately and stamp collecting, as well as the mission of the project. The content is all relevant to the topic, and seems to be up to date although the topics themselves are mostly historical. Nothing seems to be missing, and if I had any further questions or wanted to seek out any more information I could just look through all of the links and resources they provide in the 'topics" and "categories" sections. This article does not deal with one of wikipedias equity gaps, and it does not seem to discuss historically underrepresented populations very much, although there is mention of the use of food stamps and they include a section on making military postal services/mail more affordable so they don't have to pay more than other civilians.

From what I've read, the tone and balance of the article seems very neutral and not biased one way or another, but more so educational. The sources and references all seem to be there and up to date, with a ride range of different links to content that seems reliable. Out of a random sample of all of the links I clicked on throughout the article, not one didn't work (although I didn't check all of them). The article is somewhat well organized, though could be structured in a better way where it's easier to find topics within the main article topic or sections. In some ways it feels slightly tossed together.

Looking through the talk pages of this article, it looks like the discussions are mostly about the style of the content and correcting any slight content errors like if the title of something was slightly off from the original source. This article is apart of wikiprojsects and has not yet been rated.

Overall, the article seems to be a good informative way to learn more about the history of philately and stamp collecting. The articles strengths are its clear unbiased passion for the subject, and lots of interesting real world historical and current events and topics relating to the main topic. This article could be improved by adding in more images and structuring the overall article better. I think the article is fairly well developed, but I do think that there's still lots of room for improvement and it still has a way to go from being perfect.