User:GhostWriter6/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 relates to my editing digital media class. This article matters because it gives a good overview of what editing is and how it pertains to different mediums. My preliminary impression is that this was a well organized and informed article.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead is somewhat overly detailed and does not include a brief description of the articles major sections. For the most part I do think this article can be updated with more recent information, there are only a couple references from 2023, and the rest are pretty old. The article also doesn't touch on ethical considerations of editing or how the rise of AI impacts editing. For the most point I think the article has a neutral tone, however there are a couple phrases such as "In film editing, many techniques are available for use, however, using one doesn't make your edit 'better' than if it were not to be used," that may come off as controversial and might be better reworded. Upon further reflection the article could be reorganized to flow better, there are also a couple grammar mistakes, for example with dates, you do not need to use an apostrophe, so it should be 1900s not 1900's. I think the photos and captions attached to the article are good, I think they help paint an accurate representation of editing. The article is rated C-class, I can see why. There is definitely some unnecessary information in the article, and there is also some good information missing. This article is definitely more suited for a casual reader than someone interested in an in-depth understanding of the topic. I would say this article is poorly developed. It is underdeveloped in some aspects, and overdeveloped in others. The article should be reorganized to address the difference aspects of editing and address current issues facing the topic such as AI.