User:Roman.je.neu/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 this article because I am particularly interested in the car, and have a fair amount of background knowledge about the topic. Having read it, my preliminary impression was that it was a bit lackluster in content but serviceable.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section is fairly concise but slightly longer than it needs to be. It does not introduce all the sections that will be mentioned later but does a good job at providing a quick and digestible background for the car.
The content is up to date in terms of racing but is lacking it sales figure and recent confirmation of this model year being the last.
The tone is very neutral and factual. Perhaps the only bias is towards the various racing ventures so the production car is slightly outweighed relatively.
The article is very well sourced from a large variety of sources in different languages.
The article is not particularly well organized, with sales figures being at the very bottom and a couple of other oddly placed sections that seem to break continuity.
Images are plentiful and well captioned.
Overall, the article is informative but slightly outdated and very cold in tone. It does not capture many of the surrounding discussion and reported issues but is well sourced and has informative images and charts.