User:Gloriahp/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 topic because I have an interest in how countries both enact and respond to censorship, especially in cases of educational and academic book censorship. I find it interesting how book censorship reflects the interests of each country/state, as well as who is prioritized and protected. My initial impression of the article is that it is well composed, providing neutral evaluations to the historical and methodological context of book censorship.
Evaluate the article
[edit]I think the article did a good job of following the guidelines for the lead section, starting with a definition, and moving to an overview of what countries often use book censorship and what happens to those who break the legal rights around censorship. In this section, there is a note for a needed citation when discussing the rise of the middle class evangelical's concern of book obscenities. Following that citation, it seems that the point can be further elaborated upon to make it more clear. This could include providing more lead-in before and after the citation to execute this interesting and important historical context. I enjoy how the article lists the methodologies of book censorship throughout history. However, it seems that areas discussing school censorship and shelf removal can be further elaborated on. For instance, providing more historical context or examples of school censorship in current cases (even in the U.S.) could improve this article.