User:Swimuser5/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 - Wikipedia

Stanford Behavior Design Lab - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.

Evaluate the article

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog - Wikipedia

LEAD: The lead section of the article is a short paragraph that gives the summary of the article. It tells us why that is the title of the article and the history of it.

CONTENT: The content is from 1993, but explains what the illustrator had made in 2013, and studies that were done to prove the articles name.

TONE: The tone is very neutral and has balance. There is little to no bias and there is just factual information present. There are some phrasings that could be used more up to date in the Implication section. The formatting could be improved.

SOURCES: There are a lot of sources from different people. The resources are old dated and up to 2023, including a mixture.

ORGANIZATION: The article is well organized and flows well. The implications section is a little unorganized.

IMAGES: There is an image of what the article is describing and has a caption. The image is right next to the lead section which draws attention to the article. There is also another image of a dog at a computer from a more recent time period that matches with the culture of the article.

TALK PAGE: There is a lot of discussion that is on topic, helping the understanding of the article. However, there is also an argument, and there is someone that does not use civil language to discuss the edits of the article.

OVERRALL: I think that this article is well written. This is GA-Class rated. The facts are clear, and the author is getting his point across. There could be more ideas circulating why the illustrator decided to share the content in this way. If I were to improve this article, I would add a couple more images, possibly something about why this image was popular for the time period.

Stanford Behavior Design Lab - Wikipedia

LEAD: The lead section is multiple paragraphs in the beginning, but there is no clear defining lead. It goes right into an explanation.

CONTENT: The content from this article is

TONE: The tone is very informational and does not seem to have much bias.

SOURCES: This article needs to have citations in the middle of their article, and they also need verification. There are a lot of resources and references, but some of them are not very credible. People involved in the Stanford Behavior Design Lab also had edited and handled the Wiki page.

ORGANIZATION: The article is not well organized and does not flow well. There are different sections that are classified, but there is a lot of set information in the History section. Other sections could be added to improve the organization. There could also be better grammar.

IMAGES: There are no images.

TALK PAGE: There is nothing else on this talk page.

OVERRALL: It is not a very strong article and needs to be revised closely. This is rated as a Stub-Class, which means that there are edits that need to be made.

Wissahickon Creek - Wikipedia

LEAD: The lead section is defined. There is an explanation of what Wissahickon Creek is, and where it is located, and it includes history on the creek. There could be a better header that highlights the article is about Wissahickon.

CONTENT: There is a clear showing of the creek, the geography, geology, history, and different tributes Wissahickon has. The development of the creek section is very well defined and shows detailed accounts. It could be more straightforward without the emotional tone or words but is very jam packed.

TONE AND BALANCE: There is an emotional tone to the piece. It is clear that the author is in favor for this Creek, and finds it very beneficial. This could take away from the credibility. The adjectives that are used to describe trails and the creek itself are very opinionated.

SOURCES AND REFRENCES: There are copious amounts of references and sources. Some of the sources need verification. There are sources for the pictures, and the art. The references could use some updating as well as the images.

ORGANIZATION/WRITING QUALITY: The organization is there. There is a lot of different sections that focus on each part of the park. I think shortening the developmental part of the article could be beneficial to the readers. All of the images stay on one side and are lined up with the sections. The writing quality is good, but the descriptions could use less emotional emphasis.

IMAGES AND MEDIA: There is a wide variety of images and media. There are images of the Creek, surrounding areas, and artwork about it.

TALK PAGE: The talk page of the article is a series of questions as well as listings of what could be added to the page. There is also information on the combination of two Wissahickon articles.

OVERRALL: The article is rated a C class article that has a range of important topics in it. There is a great detail of information that is helpful to the public but could be reworded into a non-biased way. There is also a good number of pictures that are used and paintings of the Creek.