User:Isv2002/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?

The ABC Bunny

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

The ABC Bunny was a book that I read when I was very little. So when I saw it, I had to check it out. It matters to me because it was a part of my childhood. Then when I pressed on the article, it seemed very empty with almost no information.

Evaluate the article

The lead section was very poorly written. The lead section does not have a good introductory sentence that clearly and concisely described the topic of the article. The lead section does not include a description of the article's major sections. The lead section does not have wrong information, it's relevant. It's pretty concise but it doesn't have enough information, too empty.

The article content is related to the topic. The content does seem to be up to date, has citations/sources from 2020. The article though is definitely missing a lot of content, all it has is a brief background and poorly written plot, and a short references list. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps, it does not address topics related to underrepresented populations or topics.

The article does seem to be neutral, there doesn't seem to include any bias. There are no biased claims. None of the viewpoints are overrepresented nor underrepresented. There are no minority nor fringe viewpoints. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader at all.

All of the facts are indeed backed up by a source. The sources are both current and thorough. The sources aren't really written by a diverse spectrum of authors. And the article does not include historically marginalized individuals where possible. There doesn't seem to be better sources available, these sources are pretty good. The links all work.

The article is not badly written, but also not well written, it is very mediocre. It could have a lot more and use better vocabulary. There are no grammar nor spelling errors. The article is broken down into major sections, but it needs to have a lot more sections.

The article includes one image of the cover of the book. The image is a good one, good quality. I would have liked to see more images of the book in the article, not just one of the cover. The image is well captioned and it adheres to wikipedia's copyright regulations. The image is laid out in a visually appealing way.

There are no conversations in the talk page. The article is in Children's literature wikiproject which it is rated as stub-class and mid-importance. It is also under women writers wikiproject where it's rated stub-class and mid-importance. We haven't discussed this book in class.

It is a terrible Wikipedia article. The weaknesses of the article is that it has no analysis, a very brief background, a short and poorly written plot, and overall not enough information on the topic. The strengths are that it has a nice image, has references, has correct information, and talks about who wrote the book. Overall it is still a bad article. The article can be improved by adding a better lead section with more background, a more in depth analysis and plot, more images, and more sections with more information and sources. The article is underdeveloped.