User:Kith98/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?

Agricultural sustainability in northern Nigeria

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose the article agricultural sustainability in northern Nigeria because of my readings for my ecology class. It struck my interest especially after reading the chapter on species diversity Africa having such a large quantity of animals but also such a wide range of them. throughout the chapter it mentions to an extent how animals and humans impact the environment and what roles they play in the ecosystem. I felt like this article could give me an overview of how the ecological management effects the Nigeria’s economy. My first impression of this article was that it was very lengthy and thorough.

Evaluate the article

After reading the lead introductory sentence that helped me make my decision on whether I was going to use this article or not. Simply because it was very direct and explained exactly what this article was going to be about. I do believe in the lead they gave a great amount of information on what would follow. but I do feel that they gave a little too much information maybe on topics that didn't really pertain to their subject matter. such as how they spoke of the different clans that make up areas of Nigeria, but they started going into their customs and beliefs. Maybe they had an aspect to bring to it but it clearly was a incomplete thought because it wasn't mentioned more in the article only in lead but there was a good amount of information presented on unnecessary topics. Some of the information presented in the article was old. such as the population density which was mentioned in the article that information was pulled from 1962 to 1991. I'm not sure if there is a new consensus on such a topic. the information that they did present was relatively old when reading this article under no circumstances did, I feel the information that was being presented to me was biased or in any workplace if. I feel that the authors presented clear concise facts and any stuck in there and did thorough research in the many subcategories that they presented to make the entire article. But I do feel like the upsides or the steps that are being taken to combat this issue was it represented enough in this article. I believe the authors presented the problem more than the solution. I've personally did not go through all of the references and research sources that the authors provided but I did go through a substantial amount and from the sites they have I've presented they seem to be very accurate period from the quotes to the links to other Wikipedia pages worked perfectly and they do connect to the topic. They also lead you into other topics such as for example in the article they mentioned short grass in Savannah and when you click on that link it takes you to another Wikipedia page on the subject matter