User:Hanpearce/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 am a woman that may be seeing combat.
This is a big movement in the right direction for equal opportunity in the military.
It was a decent article that gave information that seems to cover all angles of the topic
Evaluate the article.
[edit]Lead :
the lead is concise however it is not very clear on what the article is about.
a brief explanation is pushing it, it gives you a couple words about what it talked about in the article and and it doesn't talk about everything covered in the article
overall, the lead needs to be updated
Content :
the content is not completely up to date, but it is better than I expected
most of the content is relevant
most of the content talks about the US and only briefly discusses other countries, however they do talk about them
Tone and Balance :
this article seems to be pretty neutral
the topic being discussed does bring up unreasonable conflicts for some , but the editors of this article keep their opinions of the topic to themselves
the article discusses the opposite viewpoint fairly well and addresses concerns that people have
Sources and References : links do not seem to be up to date or do not take you to information or take you to news articles you have to pay for
links definitely need to be updated, not all but most
Organized and Writing quality :
this article seems very organized
it is easy to find the different topics within this topic
the headers make it very easy to find information
Images and Media :
the images are laid out in a visually appealing way
the images also fit the topic and add to the quality of reading
the images are very well captioned
Talk Page discussion :
the conversations are detailed and are put in a way to improve the article
the talk page edit are old and it appears that most of the edit suggested were looked into and added if viable
it is a part of wiki project military history
and wiki project feminism
Overall Impressions:
the article needs to be updated as the current status of the topic changes
the article seems to well-develop otherwise
the main strengths of this article is that it politically correct