User:RedRunners/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]LinkedIn article.
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I have chosen this article because it's the selected article for practice. LinkedIn is important because it's a business focused social media compared to others like Facebook. Overall the article looks ok.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section is good and the introduction sentence about what LinkedIn is. The lead doesn't really include brief description about the major sections that follow it, rather it talks about the companies background. The content itself looks ok and looks relevant, it includes information about LinkedIn from the past as well as new sources. The tone of the article seems to be neutral and unbiased. It seems to just present the facts about the company instead of including personal views. The organization may need some improvement as the article includes many different subsections. The images included in the article support the topic at hand but may benefit from being moved into a different position. Overall it looks ok but could benefit from moving information and sections around, combining topics, and moving the photos around.