User:KPEditing/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]I wanted to choose a topic that I had a basic understanding of. This is a campaign we have talked about in my advertising classes and I wanted to see the information provided about it.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The image is very hard to see and you can not read the text on the print ad.
My professors talk about this being one of (if not the best) print ad, so I enjoyed having Ad Age as a source to talk about the advertisement's success. I also enjoyed that they included what made this ad different than other ads at the time.
The introduction does a good job of introducing who is responsible for the campaign and the success of the campaign.
I believe this page is overall fairly neutral. They never say it's the most successful ad, but instead talk about how others view the ad's success. For example, talking about how Ad Age ranked it as the best rather than saying it is the best.
The talk page is inactive, which makes sense considering not much new information has come out about this. The article is rated "Start-Class" on the content assessment scale.
The article could be improved with a better image or showing what the text says. It could potentially be helpful to compare it to other Volkswagen ads from the time. There's not a ton of information on the page, but there is also not a ton of information in general.