User:MWairimu/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? Speech–language pathology - Wikipedia

(Provide a link to the article here.)

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 is an article about my profession. The article seems well researched but it has some gaps and open tasks e.g. dysphagia . Some of the information also seems old e.g. salary survey cited was in 2013.

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.)

The article has a strong and concise lead with good subsections. SLP in the US and Canada is well represented but there's no information about SLP in other parts of the world. it is part of wiki projects in applied linguistics, disability and education. Some of the conversation on the talk page are dysphagia as one of the major areas that SLPs address, and representation. Some of the information is also outdated and there are citations needed.

The article is a class c mid-importance.

Feedback from Vetter

Hello @MWairimu: - Great work on this article evaluation of Speech-language pathology. I think it's a good choice to work on for this assignment because of how closely connected it is to your professional career, as well as because of the obvious developmental needs it demonstrates. Your evaluation, while brief, points out a few major issues such as the lack of a global scope in the article (focus on U.S.), as well as outdated information and neeeded citations. I noticed the reference number 24 went to a moved/broken link in particular.

All of these would be great starting places for your editorial work. I would also recommend a textbook or simular manual.handbook as a good source for general info.

Just keep in mind that you don't need to take the article to any kind of "final version" - the assignment requirements are

Minimum of 4 references cited and added to Wikipedia article
Minimum of 300 words added to Wikipedia article

I'm excited to see what you will do with this article. Keep in mind that a draft of your edits is due on Oct. 4.

-DarthVetter (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)