User:NotaToken/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 watched the show when it first came out and i was around 5 years old. After the show was recently brought on to Netflix, I have been rewatching and recognizing a lot of interesting writing and character choices that I would like to learn more about.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article did a wonderful job at conveying the correct information without boring the reader, although i may be biased because I was previously interested in the topic. When looking at the talk page it is clear to see that there are not constant errors that fill the page. Instead people are discussing minor issues, like how to make this article more enjoyable for more audiences. There seems to be no biased information, or any information from the author's opinion, for that matter, which is good for a person trying to learn more about the series for a school project or personal enjoyment. Everything seems to be cited as well, and when clicking the links, I am taken to websites that I trust.