User:RubyC.03/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?

Conceptual architecture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to evaluate it because it is related to architecture. However, since it is a stub, there is much that could be improved.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The lead does include an introductory sentence that is concise and explains well what is Conceptual Architecture. The rest of the lead is also very concise. However, it does not present a breakdown of the structure of the rest of the article (as it does not have many other sections).

Content

The content that is included is very relevant, however in total there is not much content. The content is not the most up to date (the most recent examples are from 2004), but given the nature of the topic, this does not hurt it too much.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral and presents various positions, both of conceptual architects as well as modernists who practiced similar ideas. The article does not try to persuade the reader of one of these positions. There could be more view points added.

Sources and References

There are only 3 sources in the bibliography, so it would be good to have more. However, they are all notable sources such as books and university journal publications. Problematically, most facts are not supported by a citation. The one that is supported is a quote at the end of the article. Also, the sources are not current: they are from 1992 and 2004. By researching the university database, there are definitely many more current sources relating to conceptual architecture that could help improve and expand this article. Some examples are article relating fake news and conceptual architecture in the last few years. A good element about the links is that they all work.

Organization and writing quality

Overall, the article is grammatically and linguistically well written and free of spelling mistakes. There is a use of quotation marks that might need to be formatted differently, perhaps with double quotation marks (I would have to check the linguistic rules). There is also one sentence that starts with "but," so it does not read as a complete sentence. What little there is in the article is well organize, but there is not much to it.

Images and quality

There are no images in the article. However, it mentions several examples of architects who practiced conceptual architecture so it would be useful to include examples of their work do demonstrate what it is.

Talk page discussion

There is not discussion on the talk page. It does indicate that the article is within WikiProjectArchitecture, so one should visit the project page for discussion. However, upon visiting that page, there is no discussion relating to the conceptual architecture page. This article is rated as Stub-Class and has not received a rating.

Overall Impression

Overall, what is included in the article is good, though citations need to be added to that information. The grammar and neutrality of the writing is also well done. The biggest improvements that need to be made are simply expanding it so that there is more information and more current information on the topic. This information does exist. Since it is a visual subject, adding pictures would be very useful. The article links to conceptual art, so following that articles structure and organization could be helpful when expanding this one.