User:Greend23/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]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_linguistics
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because it related to the current course I am taking which is linguistics. I believe this article would give me more insight not the topic of the class and my preliminary impression of the article was that it seemed very professional.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section: Very concise first sentence and gives a great overview of the topic. Content:This content was relevant to the topic giving the history of it. However it is not quite up to date and could use some more recent information regarding the topic. The article ensures that all populations regarding this topic are represented. Tone and Balance: This article is very neutral and has no bias claims regarding the topic. It makes sure to include various different viewpoints and all those in the minority are still given accurately. It it in no way attempts to persuade the reader. Sources and References: all the facts are backed up by reliable sources that are also current, thorough, diverse, and are some of the best sources available. Organization: this article is very concise and clear with no grammar errors or spelling mistakes and broken down in to sections that clearly represent subtopics. Images: This article does not have any images to enhance the understanding of the topic. Talk Page:Editors are giving constructive criticism to the write to help the article be more concise. It is rated as a C-class and is part of the Wikiproject Linguistics. I don't think we have discussed this topic in class. Overall Impression: I believe this is a very strong article that could use more images and more recent information regarding the topic. But I believe it is very well developed. Greend23 (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)