User:KFish22/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?

Insects in literature - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because insects are misunderstood in terms of importance both in literature and the real world. Additionally, entomology has become an intriguing area of study for me in the past year or so.

Evaluate the article

The lead has some effective parts, but it is very brief and to the point, i.e. listing positive and negative qualities. The lead sentence should more effectively convey the noteworthiness of these qualities. In addition, the lead sentence uses terms like "generally" which can get confusing and take away the overall message the writer wants to portray. The content of this article is very good, but likely could be improved with more information about how these qualities came about. The literature should also be reviewed for more recent findings, due to the possibility of the meaning of these qualities changing with time (and individual perspective). The tone of this article could be improved by less harsh labeling. The word "as" or "is" is problematic on an impressionable mind, as it limits the brain into thinking other characteristics or meanings can not be associated with whatever is in question. Sources appear to be completely cited, and attributions (such as workable links) are present. The article has a solid organizational structure, but playing around with placements of sections could be beneficial. Perhaps covering the negative qualities first would help with balance, as the comparison to positive is so significant. Or maybe go more in depth with the positive qualities (add more if possible)? There are a handful of images incorporated within this article. They enhance the overall appeal, resembling a very non-fictional but time appropriate design and appear to be properly captioned. The introduction line on the talk page is a very good descriptor for the main concept of this article. It may be beneficial to add. The idea of this article really suits a growing mind, like my own. The inclusion of so many literature pieces and symbolized qualities in insects is really engaging. It also implies that there could be so many more out there that have yet to be assigned. This is certainly a foundation {in terms knowledge} that could easily be built upon with more up to date understandings.