User:SPLL/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?

Kerala

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because it is my hometown and I was born here. Kerala is a big state in southern India, it is a popular place and I was curious to see what the wikipedia page looked like. I liked the page, when I first saw it, there were many pictures which was really nice and also a map of where the state is located exactly. I ended up learning a a lot about my hometown that I didn't know before. This article was also very visually appealing to me.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of this article provides an excellent introduction that is both brief and concise. There is a table of contents and provides a brief description of the article's major sections. There are a lot of precise details in the lead section, but it is still pretty concise and there isn't any information presented there that is not present in the article. The content in this article is up to date and is relevant to the topic. This article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The article seems pretty unbiased and neutral in my opinion. There are many sources in this article, providing current up to date information about everything in the article. I do believe there are better sources out on the web that might fit better into this article. All the links work and provide information about new words and topics in the article. This article is really easy to read because it is well laid out and is very organized. They give a lot of background and historical information at first to provide some context. I did not notice any grammatical errors either. There are many colorful pictures that are relevant to the article. All the pictures have a source with it and all have well thought out captions along with it. They adhere to all of the copyright regulations and are laid out in a visually appealing way. On the talk page, there are only a few posts. There is not much discussion going on. This article is ranked as a level 5 vital article in geography and it is a part of 3 different WikiProjects. Overall this article was really good and easy to follow along. Everything is up top date and everything is laid out in a visually appealing way. This article is well-developed and you can tell that there was a lot of work that was put into creating this page. I think this article can improve it's "cuisine" section of the article, I believe that it is currently too brief and more can be done there.