User:Funkymonk3y489/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 I had learned a bit of the Weddell Sea and the Antarctic Treaty last year and was curious what knowledge would overlap or differ. My preliminary impression was that the article had much more within it than I had anticipated, which made me pleased to see.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The Weddell Sea article has a lead section that is about the boundaries of the Sea, and could improve by adding additional information unrelated to the boundaries for those looking for a larger, broad overview to understand some key characteristics. Most of the topics within the article are given equal weight and the tone is unbiased, though there is a content gap in the lack of non-western perspectives and non-western history and/or views of the area. This article mostly contains citations from the 20th century and could benefit from more updated sources. The photos used are helpful in creating familiarity of the area and its landscape, but the one photo missing a caption would be more useful with some guidance. From the talk page, I get the impression that this article is not updated frequently in the slightest. There are some addendums from 2020 and citation additions from 2022 which makes me believe only sporadic edits have occurred since the article was created.
This article is pretty well-developed, but would be improved with additional information over non-represented groups (outside of a western exploration and territorial claims perspective) and more presently updated articles and references as well.