User:RollBacktheTime/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](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
It is a start class article about a relatively early female geologist. My preliminary impression of the article is that it includes some basic information about this individual's life and work, but there is some unneeded repetition ie: about half of the information in the "Early life and education" section is then repeated in the "Work" section, and could use cleanup in that regard. It also makes claims as to Jespersen's influence in the intro but is unclear as to what she influenced and in what regard. Lastly, the article has been written based on a relatively small number of references.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
Intro: Lead sentence provides a solid idea of who this individual was. Rest of intro is a bit POV ie: contextless mentions of influence and positive impact.
Early life and education: Oddly formatted. Detail about what primary and secondary schools Jespersen attended could be condensed into a single sentence, as this is not important information in the context of the subject. Para. 4 begins to describe her work as a geologist, but much of this information is then repeated in the "Work" section. Last para. of section should possibly be moved to a personal life section of some kind, as clubs Jespersen belonged to are not on topic for this section.
Retirement and death: At least some of this should also go into a personal life section. The nature of her consulting role for the government of Ghana is unclear from the small amount of information presented. There are memoirs mentioned: was this something that is available to read? More info needed. Cited work for the memoirs is linked in FTP format despite apparently being a PDF. It cannot be opened without an FTP program. Is there a better link to this resource?