User:Mo.saeed11/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 article because I am a big fan of Benny and know a good amount of information already about him and what he values. This article was also missing a few elements that I will have to edit. There is already confusion around Benny's labels because he is apart of two collectives that have a loose knit community that people do not know enough about.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead of the article does a good job summarizing the whole article and is written in a clear and concise manner. Most of the content is up to date if there was one recent event I would add it would be his recent feud with a previous collaborator Freddie Gibbs. They are both fan favorites and created a divide in the fanbase after their beef. The article is neutral and does not seem biased to any side, just a presentation of the facts. One under represented viewpoint is the fact that Benny and most of the people in his collective grew up in a crime ridden area of Buffalo which heavily influences the content of their music. The sources used by the author are very accurate and used accordingly within the article. They are all veery thorough with a variety in the type of articles and information used. The article is pretty well written and easy to follow. The only thing I would change is place the personal life section earlier in the article because it will help people understand Benny's origins and the reason he is the way he is. The author only used one picture of Benny which i think is appropriate for a biographical article because how many times do you need to see the same person. He uses the proper captions and a accurate enough picture. There is no conversations going on wikipedia talk page about Benny. This article is a part of biography wiki project so it has to follow certain biographical guidelines. I would say the article is concise and clear but could use more information on Benny before he was famous and his upbringing so we can better understand him as an artist. I would say the article is slightly underdeveloped because it is missing key info like i mentioned before .