User:Jesseb98/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]She worked for IBM specializing in databases.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section is only one sentence describing her role in IBM as a computer scientist working for IBM. Very concise and to the point but does not have any mention of the articles major sections.
The content of the article is up to date and relevant to the topic. Its written in a very neutral point of view by listing her achievements and history at IBM. It is strictly limited to her history at IBM. For instance it says she retired in 2006 but does not include any of her history past 2006 even though she continued working at other companies.
Some of the sources of information come from news articles and others do not have any links making it difficult to verify the source.
Overall the article is pretty small and unverified but can probably be improved with more content and better sources. I would say this article is fairly underdeveloped.