User:Makaylapark/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. |
(Provide a link to the article here.)
I am interested in sustainable living and eco friendly neighborhoods. I think it is important to design more environmentally friendly places for people to live and thought that this was an interesting design plan that has been implemented in many different cities.
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
The lead sentence of this article is concise and a good overview of what the entire article details. The lead has all relevant topics but there is also a long quote at the beginning. Most of the sections of the article are very detailed and up to date. One section (on films) doesn't have much information about the topics covered and the last relevant information added to that section was from 2014. The entire article is neutral and does not seem to have a bias toward any view point. It covers criticisms from different political viewpoints and does not attempt to sway the reader in a certain way. However, one word that is used in the criticism section that may be seen as attempting to sway the reader's viewpoint is "attack". They have many secondary sources that contribute to the article, however there does seem to be a a primary source that is used. The sources are fairly current and the links are working. The article is very well written and divided into good sections that are all relevant to the article. There are good pictures that all aide in explaining the topics and the descriptions are the locations of the pictures. The talk page has many good conversations about whether certain sections are needed as well as making sure all citations are correct. This article is very well developed and does not have any major fixes needed.
[edit](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.)