User:Jengr001/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]Peer review is so important, which is why I chose this article. For essays, I always have a friend read over my work before I submit anything. The help others' opinions give me is usually catching something that was missed and strengthening the development of my thoughts. I personally respect peer review academically to create better work.
Evaluate the article
[edit]This Wikipedia article covers the purpose of peer review, its history, and discusses the use of it within many professions. Many pros and cons of peer review are presented to fully enlighten the reader. Some of the sections, especially Criticisms are dense and not easy to follow. Most of them could be even clearer and more organized. The article gives a variety of good sources; however, adding new innovations in open and post-publication peer review would show how field changes reflect over time. Overall, this post is very informative and appropriately sourced, though it does have somewhat problematic organization and could use updating.