User:Jorjor280!/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?

Video games

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

The reason i picked this article to evaluate is because, I enjoy playing video games and i have some strong core childhood memory's when I was little with my siblings. Not only this but i would want to know more and learn about the origin and how much it has changed over the years. This article matter's because without the help of technology we wouldn't be able to have computer's, phones, Tv's and etc. My preliminary impression of this article was very supprisinng because of how much information was provided in the article and how all the different paragraphs connect, also how easy it was to understand.

Evaluate the article

This article does have good introductory sentences and does clearly describe what a video game is and how it started. It does a good job at including a brief description of the video game and the sections about video games, such as a electronic game, and other types of video games. No the lead has the information of the video game perfect and its organize enough to understand. This lead is very overly detailed but because it's technology and it has a lot of factors to it, its understanable why there would be so much information and it is needed for it. This Article's context is very relevant to the topic of video games. This looks to be up to date, because it included Virtual reality and how it's used in todays world of games. The context provided in this article does belong and is relevant. Since this article only talks about technology i don't think it has any wikipedia's equity gaps. This article does address the history of video games and the origin of video games. The article video games is very neutral and does not have any bias opinions. I think there is some parts being underrepresented but i don't fully understand the material for me to say. This article does not persuade the reader in any position. The information provided, is backed up by many reliable secondary sources. The sources in the article does reflect to the literature of the topic. Some of these sources are current and up to date. These article only has one author but many people did edit his work. There are many other sources available for this topic such as Smithsonain institution and History.com and these do work. This article is easy to read and easy to understand and it doesn't have any grammatical or spelling errors. For an article of video games, it is very organize and i like over all structure. The article does include many images to help us understand the topic and they are well-captioned. These images do not go against Wikipedia's copyright regulations and they are visually appealing with helping to understand the concept. The over all statues of the article is very easy good, well organized and i like how it looks and sounds professional. I think some of the article's strengths is the correlation of the history of the Video game and the different types of the video games. I think adding more pictures would help this article or adding different genre of games. I would asses the articles completeness well-developed.

This