User:Kanteditnathan/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](Provide a link to the article here.) Leilani Battle
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because I wanted to read more about African-American scientists. There aren't as many as there should be so it is refreshing to see the long lists of names and this one stuck out to me. It was interesting that Leilani was drawn to computer science from gaming. My first impression was that the biography was short. Her career and rewards section seemed very summarized. There also wasn't a picture of Leilani Battle anywhere on the article.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
The article's first sentence told me exactly who I was reading about and what her career was. It included a brief description of her current whereabouts and what she's known for. The content stayed on topic for the entirety of the article. Some information was missing which I added and cited. The article stayed neutral and didn't show any signs of bias. All of the facts were backed up with multiple reliable references. It was well written with no grammatical or spelling errors. There were no pictures of Leilani Battle or any of the schools she attended. Overall, the article was very neutral and proffessional. It's best section was on 'Early life and Education'. It was well-developed although it missed some of the 'award' facts. An improvement would be including a picture or two of Battle so the reader can put a face to who they're learning about.
What else would you add? What other aspects of a typical biography are missing other than a photo.
CT: It is hard to have a good biography of someone so young... it might be difficult to find much more information to add beyond what was started. You might consider this article as an alternative to your big project.