User:Purplexcloudz/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?

My Little Pony (TV series)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose the Wikipedia article, My Little Pony (TV series), because I was curious to see how such an obscure aspect of the My Little Pony franchise would be handled, discussed, or invested into. Additionally, I just really wanted to read more about one of the origins of one of my all-time favorite childhood shows.

Evaluate the article

The first sentence of the lead of this article is short and sweet; it explains what My Little Pony is, why it was created, and all the players involved in its creation. It doesn't include a brief description of the article's major sections or really give any information about what the article will exactly go over. I feel it includes some information that would've been better off being discussed in later parts of the article. It feels like they tried to stuff as much background as possible into a paragraph without consideration. It includes information present in the article.

The content is pretty up-to-date, including accuracy checks in 2023. I feel it's missing a lot of information about plot and the creative minds thoughts in creating it. I feel this aspect is really underdeveloped, but I can say that the article gives the same amount of weight for each section. The source is very neutral, giving basic information. The sources included are very diverse and all content is backed by these sources. Since the article is so simple and short, I can see exactly what information the writers pulled from each source. All links except for the 6th one work.

The article is very concise, as its quite short with bare bones information. There aren't any grammatical or spelling errors (except for Catrina/Katrina, which was addressed) from what I can see. Its broken down into 6 sections: synopsis, cast, Cast, Broadcast, Characters Episodes, and Home Media. The article includes one image, which is used for the title page area. It helps paint somewhat of a picture, but I wish there could've been more photos to look at. The article is rated Start-class and is part of the Wiki Projects, Television, Animation, My Little Pony, and United States. Start-class refers to a quite bare article (I've noticed) that could use some more info and an article with inadequate information/sources. The talk page is pretty critical of the article, but like discussed in class, it's cordial and people explain what exactly they've done to the article.

The article in my opinion is quite bare, underdeveloped, and doesn't really include any interesting information that a reader may be looking for. For example, why this show was created, why it was developed into many versions, how this differs from the my little pony we know now, etc. The article does a good job on listing the episodes, when they came out, and what one can expect to see in said episodes.