User:Treehugger30/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation

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?

Just transition

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to evaluate this article as I was interested to see how the term was defined and explained in a way that is accessible to a reader who is unaware. Since Just Transition is a very broad term which is used in a variety of contexts I wanted to evaluate how the Wikipedia volunteers aimed to condense this in simple terms that also are not regressive to the subject.

My preliminary impression was that the article did a good job at holistically defining and explaining what Just Transition is. However, it does not go into enough details to adequately inform the reader enough on the topic.

Evaluate the article

In my opinion, the strongest aspect of this article was the lead section. The authors accurately defined Just Transition in a concise and informative manner for the unaware reader looking for a quick overview. However, one weakness in the lead section is the overemphasis on the movements related to Just Transition in Europe without more inclusive and representative examples of just transition movements across the world, particularly areas inhabited by majority underrepresented populations. The main content of the article is useful but it also does not elaborate on what was brought up in the lead section. The lead section delves into grassroots just transition movements, however, the rest of the article's content focuses on how just transition was included in climate legislation and resolutions brought up in the UN and the EU. Also, once again, there is no mention of just transition frameworks in non-Western parts of the world. As a result, the content does not successfully address Wikipedia's equity gap of focusing on underrepresented populations.

Apart from the aforementioned flaws in the content, the article in general is well-written and has a neutral tone. It is organized coherently and intuitively under relevant subheadings except for the subheading 'definitions.' The content is incomplete and does not reflect the title of the subheading. As previously stated, research on Europe and the EU is overrepresented while other parts of the world are neglected in this article. The photo used in this article is relevant, however, it is not great quality and does not provide much background to the topic. The sources are all reliable, however, the authors only review one peer-reviewed article throughout the piece. The authors provide a useful list of academic articles on the topic, however, it is very short and could be expanded to include new articles on the topic.

Overall, this Wikipedia article about Just Transition is a great star, however, more work needs to be done. It provides an adequate and concise definition and description of just transition, however, the content should be further expanded with more relevant information that varies across time and the use of the concept in different regions of the world, particularly those underrepresented in environmental research.