User:Labnine.s/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]I chose the article on Contemporary Ethics because it provides an overview of modern ethical theories and debates that are relevant to various fields, including philosophy, law, politics, and everyday decision-making. Ethics plays a crucial role in shaping societal norms and guiding individual behavior, making it an important topic to evaluate.
My preliminary impression of the article is that it covers key ethical perspectives, such as deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and other contemporary frameworks. However, I want to assess whether it presents a balanced view, includes diverse perspectives, and provides accurate, well-cited information. Additionally, since Wikipedia is a publicly edited platform, it is important to evaluate the article’s credibility, objectivity, and comprehensiveness in covering ethical theories.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The Wikipedia article on Contemporary Ethics provides an overview of modern ethical theories, including deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and contractualism, as well as ethical issues related to technology, bioethics, and global justice. While informative, the article lacks depth in key areas such as environmental ethics, AI ethics, and business ethics and does not sufficiently address non-Western perspectives like Confucian, Buddhist, or Indigenous ethics. Additionally, historical context on the evolution of contemporary ethics could be expanded.
The article’s accuracy depends on its sources, with some claims well-supported but others lacking citations or relying on weaker references. Certain summaries oversimplify complex theories, and a stronger reliance on peer-reviewed philosophy journals and academic sources would improve credibility. While the article aims for neutrality, it leans heavily on Western philosophical traditions and does not equally explore criticisms of various ethical frameworks. Incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives from psychology, neuroscience, and sociology would enhance its breadth.
The article is moderately accessible, but its structure could be improved for clarity. Some sections lack organization, and the introduction could better summarize the scope. Additionally, outdated or insufficient sourcing affects reliability, and adding references from respected academic sources would strengthen the content.
Overall, while the article serves as a useful introduction, it requires better coverage, balanced perspectives, stronger citations, and improved organization to be a more comprehensive and authoritative resource.