User:Mander.M/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?

Geology of the Northwest Territories

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.)

I chose this article because it relates to the course material as it focuses on the geologic history of the Northwest Territories. The Northwest Territories have a very different geologic history compared to the rest of Canada due to their geographic location and how they are further up North. My preliminary impression of the article was that it is quite short with only a handful of references, however, it does include detailed content.

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 lead section introduces what the article entails. It concisely provides a description of what the sub-headings of the article are. The introductory sentence is well-written and does well at introducing the topic. The lead section provides basic information, which is then further expanded upon throughout the rest of the article. All the information is relevant to the topic of the article.

Due to the short length of the article, the content is very concise and stays on topic. There are no distractions that lead away from the main idea. The information in the article is mainly about the past due to the content being about geologic history. This is why a large amount of the content is from many years ago. The citations depict that the information is not recent and it is from older articles.

The article does not produce any bias as it focuses solely on facts. This is why it is extremely neutral. The article is not persuasive in any way and is only informational.

Based on the length of the article, there are a good amount of references. The links to the references work. A majority of the citations are articles that have been published by scholarly publications and researchers, however, the articles are not up to date. Many of the citations are linked to articles from the late 1900's. Although the citations are not very recent, the sources are reliable and do not show bias because they come from science publications. The articles are not written by very diverse authors because it appears they were only written by individuals who specialize in science and geology.

The article is well organized and provides sub-headings to make it easier to read. They spelling and grammar is accurate throughout the article. The article does not incorporate any images about the topic.

The talk page of this article is completely empty and there have been no conversations about this article. I believe this has occurred because the article is very short and to the point. It only incorporates facts so there was nothing to discuss on the talk page. The article is a part of WikiProject Geology and it is supported by WikiProject Canada, as well as WikiProject Canadian Territories. It appears that Wikipedia does not give a high importance to this topic

To conclude, the article is rated as C-class and is not given much importance on Wikipedia. I like how the article is very clear and concise. It does not include too much information and only focuses on the important aspects of the topic. The article can be improved by using some new citations to add more current information. It would also be more appealing if there were some images or diagrams to support the content of the article. I believe the article is underdeveloped because there can still be much more information added to it.