User:Honors.Student.26/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]As someone who wishes to be a nurse, I was intrigued by the theory and wanted to learn more. Now I am evaluating the article to see how accurate it is and what can I do to elevate it.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article's introduction is really good but can be improved by making it clearer by giving a summary of the major sections in the article so readers know what to expect. The content is pretty up to date but some more recent theories or theorists from different backgrounds can be added. The article does a good job of staying neutral and not promoting one theory over another. However, more theorists are Western. To give more representation, theorists from other parts of the world could be added as well. Most sources used seem reliable but maybe more recent sources can be implemented as well. The article is also very organized with its sections, has clear writing, and no grammar errors. However, some sections could be more detailed. The article could add diagrams or other visual aids to help the reader better understand the theories. I'm not seeing many talk page discussions I assume because the page doesn't get that many updates or input. Overall, the article is very developed, it can just benefit from a few things.