User:RoboElephant/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 to use this article because digital media is a topic I already know somethings about. Also, because the article doesn't feel like it's overflowing with information that would make it hard to find new things to add.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section: The lead section does introduce the topic, but it gives a lot of different definitions about what digital media means. It’s a little confusing because the first section gives a lot of definitions and the second section also titled Digital Media gives more definitions. It could be reworded some to make it a little less confusing, but it does introduce the topic.
Content: The content that is there, it is pretty good and seems pretty up to date. However, there isn’t all that much content on the page to begin with. There are only two sections with real detail. It definitely needs a lot more.
Tone and Balance: This article seems pretty neutral, very definition and statistics heavy.
Sources and References: This article seems to have good references and sources. There are a lot of hyperlinks and sources throughout. There is also a “See also” section where there is more information or related topics for more clarity on certain topics. The sources are relatively recent. Most of them are forums around 2010ish so there definitely needs to be some more recent information used to update the article, but the ones that are there seem good.
Organization and Writing Quality: I feel the organization of what little there is, is good. It is split up nicely and in an order that makes sense. The writing quality is pretty good. Some of it seems a little wordy and could be made more clear and concise.
Images and Media: There are very few pictures, but the ones that are there are captioned well. From what I can tell they do adhere to the copyright regulations.
Talk Page Discussion: There is nothing on the talk page aside from someone asking for more work to be done on the article. There is literally nothing else.
Overall Impressions: What is there is good, but could be made a little clearer. I don’t really see any strengths because there is very little there, but the history section seems pretty solid and the article seem pretty reliable even thought there needs to be more recent ones added. This article can be improved with more information and pictures. This article is severely underdeveloped.