User:Lucipheric/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.) Strategic Defense Initiative

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This article is related to class material. I used the sources linked in this article to create discussions.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section: The lead section has a good introductory sentence. The lead section includes a brief description of some of the article's major sections. The lead section does include information that is not present in the rest of the article. The lead section is concise.

Content: The content is relevant to the topic. The content is up to date in the lead section, but not in the article. No content appears to be missing. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral in tone. No claims appear heavily biased. There may be some overrepresentation of criticism against the program, and underrepresentation of the things it did accomplish. Minority and fringe viewpoints are described as such. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position, however it does have far more information on one viewpoint.

Sources and References: The facts in the article appear to be bakced up by reliable sources. The sources are thorough. THe sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. There may be some better sources available. Many of the sources are journal articles or newspaper works - not scientific pieces. Most of the links work, however some of them link to pages that require paying to access - such as The New York Times. A few of the sources have no links.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is well written and easy to read. The article does not have any major grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized and broken into sections. However, a few of these sections are underdeveloped. Two sections are only a single sentence.

Images and Media: The article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic. The images are well-captioned. All images adhere to wikipedia's copyright regulations as far as I can tell. They are mostly in the public domain, and all include sources. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion: There is no conversation behind the scenes. The article has two C class ratings, and one B class rating. It is part of four wikiprojects, one of which is inactive. The class discussion had more detail about the particulars of some of the projects and how they worked, (or didn't work). The Wikipedia article only has short summaries.

Overall impressions: The article needs some work. It has some strengths, many of the sources are quite good, the images are good, organization and writing quality are fine. The article could use several points of improvement. Several sections are underdeveloped and have very little content, there is very little recent information, references could be made to modern technology originating from the SDI, the timeline section is by this point oudtaded, and recent information is referenced in the article lead, but nowhere in the article body. Overall the article appears to be well--developed in what it has, but is substantially lacking in several areas. It would require a good deal more expansion and improvement to be a good learning resource.