User:Kolbbolb/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?

Dancing plague of 1518 - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I thought it would be interesting to learn about different kinds of "plagues," such as social or cultural plagues/ mass hysteria. This article talks about a plague that doesn't express itself in illness and doesn't have a medicinal cure or way to treat, but this phenomenon still counts as a plague due to the way it spreads from person to person, negatively affecting each and spreading symptoms. It is compelling to read about a plague that can have no discernable cause or internal bodily changes but still affect so many people and spread rapidly.

Evaluate the article

The beginning of this article has a decently structured but not very in-depth lead section describing the content and possible theories behind the plague. It is nice and concise and has a good overview of the coming article's major points, but could have expanded on the "plague," itself.

The article's content mostly consists of describing the outbreak and events surrounding during the time period, then heading to the modern-day theories surrounding the dancing plague. It seems up-to-date and all relevant but feels like it is missing information on other "outbreaks," of this disease and their resolutions as they are only briefly mentioned at the end of the main section. The article also could've added more perspectives/theories on the disease as it only includes two, as well as timelines for the initial plague (when it ended, how long it lasted) which are missing but important things to note.

The sources included are relevant and reliable, but I feel more varied sources are needed for this case. The breakdown of the initial outbreak included a good number of sources, more could be used, but more importantly they all seemed to be very similar perspectives and similar information. I think it would be valuable for the article to include more unique sources and maybe more citations. It would also be nice to include more perspectives on the different theories concerning the dancing plague and how it came to be, as there are few theories and few sources on each.

The article is written well and has no errors in it but could use more educated writing and vocabulary. The organization is very good and structured well with different sections following different topics, just not very many topics to expand on.

There is only one image associated with this article, and it is very well cited and relevant as it is an engraving of an original first-person drawing representing three people suffering from this plague. It would be beneficial for the article to include more artwork from this time period to provide visual representations.

This article's talk page seems to be in lots of disagreement about the article itself- I thought it was written well and the sources seemed solid, but this talk page shows I'm not a common wiki editor- there was lots of talk over the article's source reliability, relevance, and structure. There were also people questioning and proposing merging this article with other ones on similar topics to provide more background and combine it will similar instances of "dancing plague," phenomenon which seemed like a productive idea to me. People are also linking other sources to help each other out- but they are in french.

On overall evaluations- the article seems very non-biased, written well and provides good solid information, it just needed more. The article would be improved if it expanded on its information, including more sources, perspectives, media and ideas to cover. It feels very complete and wrapped up well the way it is, but I feel there is more to cover on this article's topic.