User:Hstephen1/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Forensic facial Reconstruction

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I have chosen to evaluate this article because I have a growing interest in Forensic Facial Reconstruction and Forensic Anthropology. This being said, being a Forensic Science student, I feel that it is important to have a general understanding of the different fields of study that are also being taught during the scholar year. Forensic Science is a growing field with high expectations in law enforcement, therefore it is important to have the proper information published and being followed. Although this page might only contain some general insight into this field, it is a great way to learn about the aspects of Forensic Facial Reconstruction.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of this article includes a good introductory sentence and brief overview of what will be discussed further in the article. The lead section also only includes information that is presented in this article and that is related to this article, it does not contain information that does not belong in this article. Finally, the lead is short and concise, which is exactly what is to be expected with a lead section of an article. The content of this article contains content that is relevant to this topic, however there is much more information that can be added in enhance and develop the content of this article. Although the information in this article is important to this topic, regarding its history and development, some of the information seems to be dated, in other words, recent findings could be added to improve the quality and accuracy of facial reconstruction today. as previously stated, the material included is relevant to this topic however, there is information missing to this, such as some of the steps in the reconstruction methods. The tone and balance of this article is established, being that it is of neutral, with the information not persuading in favour of one position over another. As many fields of study may contain come bias, there may be some within the information presented in the article but it does not seen to be done intentionally. Although the article is fairly short, the organization and writing quality describe the overall topic very well. The sections provided clear understanding of what was being discussed in the section of the article. The sources and references seem to be properly cited and reliable. However, even though I am not familiar with the literature, it seem to be published by will known journals, reflecting the topic of discussion. When trying to access those references, they were accessible which made it easy to look further into this topic. Although some changes should be done to improve this article, such as adding missing information, overall it is an interesting article that is very clear about the topic of Forensic Facial Reconstruction.