User:StaticOrc/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose food safety because I think food safety is important to understand to make the right decisions when eating or cooking.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, perfectly encapsulates what food safety is while also condensing all necessary information within a single sentence.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Mostly, it seems all but one section was referenced in the lead.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No, all information seems to be referenced again in their respective sections.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? May be a bit overdetailed for an introductory section.

Content

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, all content within stems from food safety.

Is the content up-to-date? Yes, was updated very recently and has a large editor base.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all content in each section seems fleshed out and efficient in providing information.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I see no bias in this article, seems to be neutral.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links all seem to work and the source supports the claims in the article.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? I noticed that a portion of the sources are from articles online and magazines, these articles are not biased but these are not the best references.

Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications? There is a wide variety of sources, coming from government websites, databases, articles online, books, etc.

Talk

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Looks like this article has been used by another school for a course assignment, so there are a few criticisms on this page. One says there are not enough headings making the article difficult to read and another points out an inconsistency with a reference.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as C-class and is Top-Importance, this page has also been a part of a few WikiProjects.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is an odd mix of reactions from people accessing this article. Weird and valid complaints, more information, more sources to add based on recommendation, etc.

Another issue I wanted to add is that there is a warning banner for the sources of this article on the top of the page. This is a problem for verification for the subject.