User:LAP2000/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]It was part of the political communication category, and it seemed like an interesting topic that may need editing.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section was well done. It was concise and immediately gave a solid definition. The content was all well-written and descriptive, without being biased or overly written. One shortfall was that the article only goes further in depth regarding voter databases in the US, UK, and Canada. The article could be improved to have information about voter databases in other democratic countries.
The article is well developed, but could have more information regarding other countries.
Regarding sources, many of the sources are fine, but a few come from non-reputable or biased sources. Some come from personal blogs, and others are from partisan websites that may be skewed. This bias is not noted in the article.