User:Sneakerhead0624/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?

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The introductory sentence describes how it is an internet meme and who this meme was created by. It includes the date that this meme was published. It gives a brief summary of what the article is going to be talking about. The lead doesn't include any information not included in the article and it is current because the page was last edited in September 2024.

Content

The content in the article is relevant because it gives a brief summary enough for you to have a general idea about the topic not including too much information. It definitely does talk about a topic that is underrepresented. In the implications section it discusses how the cartoon represents topics much deeper than people would have thought.

Tone and Balance

The article is written in a neutral way because none of the points were biased in any way. The information was presented just to inform the reader not to persuade or make the reader think any specific way. Some of the examples could be more general and use better language like "cross-dressing".

Sources and References

There are a variety of sources some way older than others. I do believe they are relevant to the topic. All the sources discuss the internet or meme in some capacity. Include both old and new references showing that people are invested in this article.

Organization and Writing Quality

I believe the article was well written and it is organized. It started off with a nice introduction and mentioned the history before it got further into the content. After the content was discussed implication were mentioned which basically went into how this cartoon is relevant and how we can interpret it into having a greater meaning.

Images and Media

The article includes a picture of the cartoon which I think is important because if you are going to write an article on a specific visual the audience is going to want to see what it looks like. It also showed another picture of a more current dog imitating the same position showing that the cartoon was impactful and still relevant today.

Talk Page Discussion

A lot of the comments are saying that the article was written well and the information is useful. There was also a disagreement because one person believed something included was off-topic but someone commented disagreeing with them basically saying that they need to back up what they are saying.

Overall Impressions

I think this is a good article. The publisher included a lot of references and I feel like it was very informative without being too wordy. The audience is able to gain a basic understanding on the cartoon. I also liked the amount of references used because it shows a lot of research was done on the topic, and the sources are relevant. I would improve the article by making the implications section easier to understand. I think this section could be more concise and explained better. Also they include a source about child porn but this is no longer discussed in the article.

Which article are you evaluating?

Stanford Behavior Design Lab

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The introduction does a good job at introducing the topic the article is going to be discussing. It includes the important names of people that were involved with the research organization. It gives a brief glimpse of what the team looks at and what their goal is. It also list briefly some work they can b be recognized for. The wording is confusing and there are some errors. Some of the sources are older too.

Content

I think the content is relevant to the topic. It gives up to date information and it provides a brief history so that the audience is familiar with the background of the organization.

Tone and Balance

There is a warning at the top of the article that biased information is contained and that it can come off as an advertisement. This is dangerous because these articles are here to inform they should not be used to persuade or advertise a specific idea or thing. It does appear to be a little biased because they are speaking of the organization very positively, it wasn't neutral. It is suggested that the people in the organization could be editing their own wikipedia page because the same editors have done a lot of edits.

Sources and References

There is an extensive reference list but it could include more citations. Some sources are older and could be updated. A lot of the history section is unsourced.

Organization and Writing Quality

I do not think this article is organized very well and it seems a little choppy. It is kind of all over the place however it is somewhat in chronological order which is good.

Images and Media

There are no images or media and I think the article would benefit by including some.

Talk Page

There is no talk page on this article which is not a good sign. It shows people are uninterested in the topic or do not have anything positive to say about the article.

Overall Impressions

I think the article had some strengths but there is room for a lot of improvement. More citations could be included and it could be better organized in a way that the audience gained more from the article. Images could be included as well.

Which article are you evaluating?

Health in Jamaica

Evaluate the article

Lead section

The lead section could use a lot of work. I think it should be written in a clearer way. I do not think it gives a good overview of what the article is about and it doesn't really introduce anything. There is no introduction sentence and it isn't very organized.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic but there is a lot more that could be included. The information could be updated as well. For instance, the life expectancy was for the year 2012 which was over 12 years ago. That detail could be inaccurate now.

Tone and Balance

The tone is very non biased it seems to be just informative. There is no bias. There is no persuasion being attempted it is remains neutral

Sources and References

There are not a lot of sources at all. There definitely could be more references included. The most up to date article was from 2022 so I would love to find more current references especially after Covid.

Organization and Writing Quality

It isn't very organized because there are not a lot of topics being covered in the article. All the information is together there are not many subheadings. There is no divide between topics or areas of the article. The layout needs to be fixed.

Images and Media

There are no images or media included in the article and I do believe the article would benefit by including some. They would just have to be images that benefit the article and are relevant to the topic.

Talk Page Discussion

There is no talk page on this article. This might be because the article wasn't rated very high for importance but I do think learning about healthcare offered in Jamaica is important.

Overall Impressions

I think this article has a lot of potential but there is a lot that could be improved. I think the layout/organization could be improved, more content and images could be included, and the lead section should be rewritten. I think this is an important article to write about so I am surprised there is not more information.