User:Sproutingideas/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?

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article as I was curious to see what information was provided on the federally recognized group of my tribe (Coast Miwok), especially since I know it has an interesting history. It's a comparatively small tribe to others, which makes information to the public more limited. Through my own research through the archives (and research done on such), I know how little and difficult information there can be, and I also know that much information comes through oral-tellings, which I know Wikipedia wouldn't view as an adequate source. Based on all of this, reviewing this article is critical as someone with built-in knowledge on it to see what information is there, missing, new, false, etc. Immediately upon opening the article, I saw it's in need of citations/sources and thought it all the more important to evaluate.

Evaluate the article

This article is well-organized for the amount of content it contains, but ultimately there is rather sparring content - split into just 4 sections. In both the "early history" and "recent history", there are multiple sentences that have been edited by others to need a citation, often on more generalized statements that can't be directly supported. In looking through the page's history, the most recent edit was made in September of 2024, with a focus more so on page look than content. While there have been continuous edits over time on this article, most have been minor in recent times, changing headings, altering/elaborating names, etc. without adding any new information to the past, present, or future of the tribe. The talk page had a few interesting discussions, mainly from 2007 but also going through 2010 - otherwise it's been rather silent. The talk page dove into addressing biases and opinions on the tribes validity, values, etc. when it was of the time of building casino operations; now, as time has settled and more programming has developed, less arguments are apparent and the article is written far more neutrally. The biggest need for this article at this moment, in order to move it past "start" mode and up in importance, is verify the claims in the article that need sources to support them. At this time, a lot of the claims may not have Wikipedia-approved sources to supprt them, in which they may need to be removed until they can be properly supported or other improved statements are made in replacement.