User:SadieRLev/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?

History of natural language processing - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

.I chose the article History of Natural Language Processing because it provides a comprehensive overview of the evolution of NLP, which is a crucial field in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics. Understanding the history of NLP is essential as it highlights significant milestones, influential figures, and technological advancements that have shaped the way we interact with language technology today. My preliminary impression of the article is that it is well-structured and informative, but it could benefit from the inclusion of more recent developments and diverse perspectives to provide a more holistic view of the field's progres

Evaluate the article

The lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic, stating that it covers the history of natural language processing, the lead is clear and concise. It does not explicitly include a brief description of the article's major sections, but it provides a general overview of the topic and all information in the lead is present in the article.

The article's content is relevant to the topic, covering significant milestones, influential figures, and technological advancements in natural language processing. The content is reasonably up-to-date, but it could benefit from more recent references to reflect the latest developments in the field. There is no irrelevant content, but the article could be expanded to include recent advancements and more diverse perspectives. The article does not specifically address topics related to historically underrepresented populations. It focuses on the technical and historical aspects.

The article is written from a neutral point of view, presenting information without bias. The article doesn't seem to have bias, written in a neutral tone, and gives representation of viewpoints. It doesn't specifically address minority or fringe viewpoints.

For sources, most facts in the article is backed up with a reliable source. The sources reflect the available literature on the topic, providing a comprehensive overview, they could be more current, but they are within reason. The sources could be improved by including more works by a diverse spectrum of authors, including historically marginalized individuals where possible. There may be better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles, which should be incorporated. Links work.

the quality of the work is good, it is clear, well organized and professional, with no significant spelling or grammatical errors. The article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic and are well-captioned and laid out in an appealing way.

The talk page has a writer suggesting some possible edits and disagreements. The article is rated as a start-class and mid-importance.

Overall, it's well developed but could use some updated research and new perspectives.