User:Jessica Eng/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?

American literature (academic discipline) - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I choose to evaluate this article as it was one of the first topics to spark my interest when reviewing the list of articles. I decided that I would move forward with the first article I selected. American literature is a broad topic and I felt like this would cover the general history of the topic and go into more details.

Evaluate the article

Lead section - started with a very general, one line statement about what American literature is then went into the "History" section. In my experience with Wikipedia pages, there is at least a brief paragraph at the beginning that provides a bit more context on the topic. The abrupt statement at the front made it so I went immediately into the follow-on sections looking for more information.

Content - overall the content was good, if looking for history on American literature. What it is lacking is more information beyond 1932 and more relevant information on the overall topic. It appears the last edit was made in October 2020 so it's likely the article could be revised to ensure the information is most current.

Tone & Balance - overall, the article is neutral; however, there are words utilized such as "generally seen", that could make appear as though the author was providing an opinion but there are references provided to backup the statements.

Sources & References - overall, there is a mixture of sources utilized including books and journals and were written and/or retrieved from as early as 1994 and as late as 2015. The links to the journals and online articles work and you can find the books referenced utilizing the listed ISBN. There does appear to be a reference or two missing from the history section related to World War I and the increase study of American literature.

Organization and writing quality - the article is a little too concise especially if a reader is looking for more current information on the topic of American literature. It would be interesting if the article discussed how American literature as an academic discipline as evolved overtime.

Images & Media - there are no images included in this article.

Talk page discussion - this article is listed as within the scope of WikiProject Education with a C-class rating and mid-importance on the project's importance scale. There is one question submitted in 2018 about what all includes American literature, and someone submitted a sourcing related question on where the sentences in the last paragraph where sourced, as they were not sourced in the article.

Overall impressions - overall, this is a very brief look at the history of American literature but it leaves me as a reader wanting more information. There are "also see" links provided which allows the reader to go into more details on related topics including American studies. I opened this article and found more information on the interdisciplinary field. One suggestion would be to provide updated information on the journals and associations and maybe address the question a user left about what is included in American literature.