User:M4M3M2M1/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 this because I am studying in the field of architecture, and in recent times legacies of power are being reconsidered. The 'Modular' by Le Corbusier is a prime example of something that needs to be deconstructed.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
The introduction sentence is concise. The lead could describe subsequent sections in further detail. All information in the lead is present in the article.
Content
The content is relevant to the article, although it is missing a lot of information. It is not up to date, several publications have considered the use of figures such as Modular in eugenic architectural practices. The article should consider further discussion on historically underrepresented populations.
Tone and Balance
Neutrality is a myth - while there appears to be a surface neutrality it is simply repeating the dominant narrative. One sentence is dedicated to the discussion of the misogyny of the Modular, this section should be expanded upon. Discussion on ableism is absent.
Sources and References
Several sections are missing citations. The sources are very limited. They do not represent a diversity of authors.
Organization and writing quality
The article is concise. There are no noted grammatical errors. The subsections should be expanded upon.
Images and Media
The article contains captioned images. They appear to adhere to the copyright regulations as they are 'Public Domain'.
Talk page discussion
There is discussion regarding correcting statements made about the mathematical concepts, a question regarding footnotes, and a source suggestion. The article has a 'C-class' rating, and is of 'High-importance.'
Overall impression
I had much higher expectations for this article. I would say that it is poorly developed and requires a substantial update.