User:Khaskell2/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?

Rosa Parks

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because Rosa Parks is someone who was apart of a time of very important history and I wanted to look through this article to see how it was written and look for things based off of our wikipedia assignments and how to use Wikipedia correctly and spreading information in the correct way and not being biased as well as citing sources to back up what the authors are writing about her on the page.

Evaluate the article

(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.)

First thing that I noticed off the bat while reading this article is that the author cited their sources very thoroughly throughout the article like it was recommended during our Wikipedia assignments to show that everything the author is saying is based with citations and not just pure opinion or made up. I also discovered that they looking at the authors of the article tab that it says that it is semi protected, which tells me that this is an article of importance, which is due to the person that it is about and them wanting to protect the article from anything being added that might be incorrect. It goes into great detail about her life and something that I thought was really cool is they even provided her signature on the side which is something that I have never seen before. Looking at the talk page I noticed people adding suggestions to the article and edits which made a lot of sense to me since this isn't an article that anyone can just get into so it makes sense that people would add their suggestions on the talk page since only limited authors are allowed to edit and access the article itself. When it comes to the tone of the article I think they did an excellent job of being neutral and just providing the facts. They explain her life in great detail and they did a great job of not adding their opinion or anything and just writing down pure facts and sourcing them all almost every other sentence. Lastly I thought the lead of the article is good because they explain who Rosa Parks is right away with basic facts of when she was born but also why she was an important person and what she was apart of that made her such a public figure.