User:Jjk2023/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 Polar Express

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I have chosen to evaluate this article because The Polar Express is a story I really enjoyed as a child, and still enjoy today. The article is a C-Class article, so could use some work, and I wanted to evaluate it to see exactly how the article could be further developed. After reading the article, there is a lot of valuable information in it, but some information is missing, and I think the structure of the article could be improved as well.

Evaluate the article

Lead section:

Overall, the lead section for this article is strong. The lead section contains an opening sentence and paragraph that clearly and concisely touches on what The Polar Express is, and it outlines some key attributes of the book, such as the author, year of publication, and setting. However, the lead section could be improved since it does not currently include a description of what the article's major sections are. Additionally, I noticed that the lead section notes that this article is about the book, not the film adaptation or video game. However, some details of the movie are discusses throughout the article. I think this could be improved to clarify that there is some information about the movie in this article, or this disclaimer could be removed.

Content:

There is plenty of relevant and important content in this article, yet there are some gaps as well as unnecessary content as well. I think there could be a section added for analysis on the book (assuming relevant scholarly work exists on this topic). I also think that the "Development" section could be reworked, as it gives background information on the author's inspiration for the book, but also goes into a lot of detail on the locomotive that the story was based on. I think these could be broken up into different sections, or at least sub sections. Finally, there is additional information that could be added about the film adaptation, such as which Oscars it was nominated for.

Tone and Balance:

For the most part, I think the tone and balance of the article are appropriate, and are not biased towards one point of view. One part of the article that could be improved in this manner is when the film adaptation is noted to be an Oscar nominated film, and this is something that is noted in the Talk section as well. As the Talk page notes, this is true, but the Oscars that the film was nominated for were all for sound/music, and the movie did receive some mixed reviews overall. However, the way it is phrased in the article makes it sound like the movie was a huge success with no negative reviews.

Sources and References:

Overall, the use of sources is good in this article. For almost all the facts presented, there are sources with active links that do work, and the sources presented appear reliable. However, there is also room for improvement in terms of the sources. For example, there are no sources provided for any of the information about the film adaptation that is presented in the article, so sources should be added for this information. Additionally, there are some facts that are presented without citations, such as the fact that the whistle sound was recorded from "Sierra Railroad No. 3," which is presented in the "Development" section.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The writing quality of this article could be improved. It comes across as very basic writing at times, and is not very professional. For example, in the summary section, the article reads "He sees a conductor who then proceeds to look up at his window. He runs downstairs and goes outside." This writing quality could definitely be improved. Additionally, I think the "Development" section could be broken into two sections, or at least include a sub-section to differentiate between the author's inspiration and facts about the locomotive, and these sections could include more details. I also think that this background information could be provided before the plot summary section.

Images and Media:

The article only includes one image of the cover of the book, which is captioned properly and laid out in a visually appealing way. However, considering The Polar Express won the Caldecott Medal for its illustrations, I think more images should be included from the book.

Talk page discussion:

On the Talk page, this article is rated as C-Class. It is a part of a few WikiProjects, such as Books, Children's literature, Holidays, and more. There are several conversations occurring on the Talk page, some of which have to do with how the article can be improved as I mentioned in this evaluation. Some conversations are about improving the writing quality of the article, and some are about clarifying information about the film adaptation of the book, as well as other topics.

Overall impressions:

Overall, the article includes lots of relevant and interesting information, but there is a lot of room for improvement as well. There could be further analysis added, as well as clarifying information and better citations regarding the film adaptation of the book. Additionally, the writing quality could be improved, and more images should be added from the book.