User:Gradvis/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]Fare-free transit can have numerous operational, environmental, and community benefits. My preliminary impression is that it seems pretty informative and objective, although it seems to be lacking in verification and citations.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead does have a clear introductory sentence, although the section feels a bit detailed.
The content does seem relevant. The section on "Drawbacks" cites a report from 2002about the United States, which might not be the most relevant.
The article does feel neutral. It gives examples of fare-free transit and in different countries as well so it is not entirely biased towards the United States. The "Benefits" and "Drawbacks" are both included.
I don't think all facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The section on "Local services" does not cite any sources. The section on "Drawbacks" focuses on a report from 2002 about the United States which is not a worldwide view.
The article is not the most organized in my opinion, although the actual text feels easy to read.
There are not many images and they are not necessarily the most visually appealing, although I understand why it is difficult to show this through images. Maybe ridership graphs could be interesting to use as images.
On the Talk page, there are conversations about the organization of the article, whether the name of the article should be changed (it was), and cities/regions to include or not include as examples in the article. The article is rated "Start-class, Mid-importance." It is part of WikiProjects on Buses, Environment, Streetcars, Trains / Rapid transit, and Transport.
The article does seem underdeveloped and not extremely well organized. The strengths are that it does try to discuss the topic using global examples and it is updated to include the COVID-19 pandemic. I think it could be improved by using more citations and maybe more recognizable examples.