User:Michaelmok1010/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.)

Resonance (chemistry)

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 I think resonance is one of the most important concepts that can be used to introduce chemistry to the public. Since the target audience can be wide, providing the correct information is essential to not mislead novice readers. This article gave me a good preliminary impression as it seemed easy to understand.

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.)In the lead section, there are topic sentences that clearly explains what the topics are. There is no information that the lead includes while the information is not presented in the article. The content is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. I do not think there were any inappropriate content appeared in the article. This article is written in a neutral way and I do not think there are any viewpoints were overpresented or underpresented. For sources and reference, the reactive intermediate part did not cite any sources which could be not reliable. Some of the sources were from other Wikipedia pages which reliability might potentially be concerning. Despite those mentioned, sources for other parts are current and reliable. The links also are working. The organization and writing quality is good. It is because the article is well-written and does not seem to have any grammatical or spelling errors. The ideas were also broken down into sections to reflect the major points of the topic. There are images in the article to enhance the understanding of the topic. However, I think adding more caption to explain is necessary as novice readers might not understand what the images represent. In the talk page discussion, most conversations were about clarification on terms. It could be because Wiki users might receive their education at a different place and technical terms could vary sometimes. This article is considered to be a level-5 vital article and is rated C-class. This article is also of interest to one WikiProjects. I think the difference of the way Wikipedia discusses the topic would be some users might use strong language on judging the article when there is a disagreement. I think the article is well-developed as most of the explanations are clear. However, adding more images and more explanations on the images and citing sources for every topic can improve the article.