User:Tsetness/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

Evaluation of The Battle of Alexander at Issus

The Battle of Alexander at Issus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

This article intrigued me because it was a historical event with an awesome first picture. The picture was intricate and captured a lot of grandeur. I also had never heard of the battle but was bound to the household name of Alexander, so I was intrigued to learn more about the leader.

Evaluate the article

Lead section: The lead section of this page was well formed and detailed the events in a non biased way. it articulated the art and the artist, the historical depiction of the event and gave a brief artistic insight on the meta of the battle depicting the religious input on the piece.

Content: The content of the piece was through describing the historical overview of the battle with a detailed explanation of the strategy and historical opinions of the leaders at the time. The content was also thorough in the meticulous breakdown in the parts of the artwork making many references to the artist collections in which the original artwork was included. The history of the artwork and the discussion around the artist was also well woven into the content. The content was also well spaced in creating enough subsections to create a solid foundation to delve into the subject. The subjects were also broad enough to not be too complicit in overlapping detail and creating enough breadth to create an intersectional approach to the piece.

Tone and Balance: Tone and balance was pretty neutral with little if any tonal partiality. It was presented pretty factual and the author sounded knowledgable throughout the piece and was well adept to adding important detail without creating too much nuance lexically.

Sources and references: the notes and references were broad and seemed well sourced. the attention to citing was a good indication of the amount of references and cites used. There were also plenty of hyperlinked words that articulated the nuance of some ideas or concepts throughout the piece which was studiously adept. I also like that addition of the gallery, which I am uncertain to the extent art pages have, but was interesting and seemingly innovative for future reference.

Organization and writing quality: The overall organization and writing quality was solid. It had a very nice readability that centered well on any subject at hand without being to exhaustive. The insights were articulated in a palpable way which made each section articulate and well versed.

Images and media: There were plenty of images from macroscopic of the initial image, to branched images relating to the artist and other works of similar characteristics and schema.

Talk page and discussion: The talk page was rather civil and had good insights to what needed to be done and how best to acknowledge the intricacies of ideas. There were plenty of comments stating edits made, and the responses were well received and courteous.

Overall impressions: I really liked this page and the way it was laid out. I think it was a generic wikipedia page but had the right information and imagery to accompany that made it more coherent. My overall impression was that the page was astute and reliable, detailed but with wide breadth.