User:Reaganmessner/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?

Little Rock, Arkansas

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I didn't know anything about Little Rock, Arkansas. This article matters because of Arkansas' standing as a recognized status as a State within the United States of America^[1]. Little Rock's is important because of it being the populated city in the state of Arkansas^[2]. My preliminary impression of this article is that it's well cited but the order of information seems to not flow well, but overall it's well written and has useful information.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The introduction sentence does introduce the relevance and importance of the topic in a clear and concise manner. The lead section covers some content sections in the article but doesn't mention "Little Rock Desegregation Crisis", "Economy", and "Education" to name a few sections left out. All information mentioned in the lead section is also mentioned throughout the article.

Content

All content in this article relate to the topic and are relevant to different interest areas surrounding the topic. The article was last updated September 6th, 2023 and would appear to be up to date and not missing any key content sections. But content issues related to original research raises concerns about the validity of content. This article does mention historically underrepresented groups, specifically in the "Little Rock Desegregation Crisis" section.

Tone and Balance

Throughout the article a mostly consistent neutral tone in maintained. I was unable to identify any claims that seemed to contain heavy bias or persuasive language. It did seem though the "Little Rock Desegregation Crisis" could have had more content due to its national relevance.

Sources and References

There is a sufficient number of references that cite the information in the article. Sources are mostly scholarly with some be from the media. Does need some in text citations but for volume of information pretty well cited.

Organization and writing quality

This article is both clear and concise as well as easy to read. The organization of the article was a little confusing with sections that don't seem as important having large headers.

Images and Media

The images included in the article do enhance the understanding of the article and have captions that describe the images adequately. The lay out of images flows well with content but more images could be added to better enhance the readers understanding.

Talk Discussion Page

The talk page has many different discussions all relevant to content in page including visual aids and content to be edited and added. I does not seem this article is apart of any wikiprojects.

Overall Impression

This article is well done with the volume of information included. Could use some alterations and citations but reads very well and has plenty of sources.

^ "Little Rock, Arkansas", Wikipedia, 2023-09-06, retrieved 2023-09-06
^ "Little Rock, Arkansas", Wikipedia, 2023-09-06, retrieved 2023-09-06

[1] "Little Rock, Arkansas", Wikipedia, 2023-09-06, retrieved 2023-09-06

[2] "Little Rock, Arkansas", Wikipedia, 2023-09-06, retrieved 2023-09-06

[1]

[2]