User:Lemonandcookies/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?

Rumour Has It (Adele Song)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I really love the song. The article itself is not very important to my contribution of Wikipedia or to my class, but I believe it is fairly unbiased and factual.

Evaluate the article

The lead section provides a nice overview of the rest of the article. Some things are mentioned again in their respective section but I think it's fine and has good reasons as to why it's mentioned twice. The sources I noticed and looked at are current, some of them direct quotes from people that reviewed the song and the album, either Adele herself of a critic quote. The tone is neutral, without much sway to a positive or negative bias on the article itself. All opinions expressed in the article are quotes from Adele or critics about their thoughts on the song, the background, meaning, or other details surrounding the song.

The article is apart of two WikiProjects, Adele and Songs. For the most part, I believe that the article has good tone and writing quality, one of the Talk page sections refers to the lead section missing some citations and the article having a bit of a biased tone (that the article reviews seem to overrepresent positive perspectives). This section is the most recent (from 23 September 2024) so I don't think the issues it mentions have specifically been resolved yet but aside from that the article seems well-balanced. There's also a lot of media. A bit of controversy in the Talk page about if the album cover was official or fan art, but the resolution I can find is that the fan art cover was removed on grounds that it wasn't official. I can't tell on my own if it has been resolved or not.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Lead section:

It is a good lead section, it gives a good description of the literal cartoon and the impact it had on the world and the artist’s life. It’s pretty concise and doesn’t give too many or too few details.

Content:

The content is pretty up to date, the most recent revision is from the 20th of September editing the formatting of the page so someone has recently looked over the page to see if it is still current. All of the content is relevant to the main topic, and there is also a section of the page that links to other articles that are related to the concept but not directly referenced or mentioned elsewhere.

However, it doesn’t address topics related directly to historically underrepresented populations, the article is pretty straightforward and cleancut.

Tone and Balance:

It is neutral, there are quotes and some words from the artist, editor, and an activist, but those are not directly restated by the author of the article, rather referenced to see the world’s commentary on the cartoon. It is a very informative piece about the history and the outcome of the cartoon, what it did for Steiner’s life, and what the cartoon represented for the rest of the world after that.

Sources and References:

There are some older sources (from 1993 and 1995) which is much more relevant to the time period of the original cartoon. There are also some sources from recent years, retrieved as recent as 2023, and edits from 2024. All the sources that I’ve checked, recent and older ones are still working or archived somewhere in the Internet to check on again. I don’t know if there are better sources to use than the ones already cited, but those that are cited are mostly tech articles, or newspaper articles (there’s a WaPo one that worked). The picture of the dog at a computer under Popular Culture doesn’t have a good reference for what the picture actually means in popular culture or what it was for.

Organization and writing quality:

The article is well-organized and accurately reflects the major points of the article. However, the lead section doesn’t mention the implications of the cartoon, of the popular culture references that are talked about later in the article. This could be remedied by mentioning briefly in the lead section how the implications of the cartoon affected different groups of people, online or in-person around the world.

Images and Media:

There are two images in the article, one of the actual cartoon and the other of a modern recreation of the cartoon as a digital image. The picture of the dog at a computer under Popular Culture doesn’t have a good reference for what the picture actually means in popular culture or what it was for. That is a potential failing of the article and could be fixed.

Talk page discussion:

A lot of the talk page discussions are about other recreations of the cartoon and users wondering if it is relevant enough to put on the actual article. There are some about wording in the article as well. It is rated a good article and on 5 WikiProject pages, mid-importance on Internet and Internet Culture, low-importance on Computing and Sociology.

Overall impressions:

Article’s overall status is good, I think it’s strengths were it’s descriptions of history and implications. One thing I think it could improve on is mentioning the different section in the lead section, because the lead section doesn’t mention the implications of the cartoon in modern cultures. Other than that, it is very well developed and thorough.

Stanford Behavior Design Lab

Lead section:

The lead section had good and little overviews about the main sections. The introductory sentence was informative and it is pretty concise.

Content:

It's history section is the most notable section, largest, and has the most information. The other sections (Notable alum and Notes) don't provide as much detail into the Design Lab itself. The history section also has information leading up to present day info about the group, not just origins of the creation or what they did in the first few years. There's no specified section for current years and recent objectives of the group.

Tone and Balance:

A lot of the article is written with very positive notes towards the Stanford Group. There is a warning at the top of the article because part of the article is written like an advertisement and is biased, which I definitely agree with.

Sources and References:

The sources and references listed are both relevant to current times and to the original time period that the Stanford Lab was created in. The most recent reference I saw is from 2019, and the article has been updated and retrieved references from as recent as 2022. I checked a couple sources to see if they would load up properly, and all the ones I checked, did.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The writing quality is fine but the organization could be better. Like I mentioned in content, it doesn't reflect very accurately what the history of the organization is vs. what is happening currently. Under the history section, its organized like a timeline of sentences and paragraphs, but unless you're reading through it can be hard to find a specific year. Organizing and splitting up that section might be beneficial.

Images and Media:

There are no images or media used in the article.

Talk page discussions:

There are no discussions available on the talk page. This article is also only related to one WikiProject, California, but has not received an importance rating on the project. This article is rating Stub-class because it doesn't provide enough information on a topic to be relevant or used as accurate encyclopedic references.

Overall impression:

I think this article could be improved a lot. Through re-organizing the article to be easier to read and find information, adding more information about the origins of the group/leaders/how it functions, and adding relevant media, all those things could be brought up to better the article and make it more functioning, also to raise it from Stub-class. The information that is included in the article isn't necessarily bad, it's just not very neutral or factual about the organization.

Oklahoma Aquarium

Lead section:

The lead section is very small, and does not give a good overview of the topic. In one sentence, the lead section says the sq ft of the aquarium center, that it's public, and where it's located. However, it doesn't mention anything else from the article like what kind of exhibits there are or major donors.

Content:

The content is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. There is a contradiction I saw from a "fun fact" listed on the Talk page to what is actually described in the article about how many pieces of antique fishing tackle are housed in the aquarium, so that could be fact-checked and updated. There is content missing that could be updated like what kinds of species are housed where in the aquarium, maybe different events they do or exhibits that change around/that they've had in the past.

Tone and balance:

The article is neutral and doesn't do anything outright to persuade the reader to a specific side.

Sources and references:

Not all the sources are reliable and independent from the topic of the article. 4/10 of the sources are from okaquarium.com and 2 of them don't work, probably because the website has been updated and the link is out of date.

Organization and writing quality:

The article could be better organized. The writing quality isn't bad but it is very short and doesn't give many details, although there is not much to give details on in the current article. I would reorganize and relabel the section to better describe the content in it. There are only two section as is, the lead and "Exhibit" which is the whole article.

Images and media:

There are a few pictures and they are all relevant to the article. One is a picture of the building, under that a photo of a map where the aquarium is located. Then a picture of an exhibit and a picture of a young boy looking at another exhibit. I think all the images are relevant to the article, but I think there should be more tie into the content of the article rather than just a picture of it.

Talk page discussions:

There are no discussions on the talk page, but the article is part of two WikiProjects. It's part of Zoo and is mid-importance ranked to Oklahoma: Tulsa

Overall impressions:

I think this article has much to improve on. From updating the sources and getting more reliable information about the exhibits and the history of the article, to reorganizing the article to better articulate each section instead of all the fact being under "Exhibit". The article's overall status is Start-class so it can be improved a lot, but overall the facts it has are right and relevant, there could just be more.