User:Twinklingbug/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?

Sea Turtle

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I really like sea turtles and I'm interested in learning more about them.

Evaluate the article

Lead: The lead includes a clear and descriptive sentence regarding the topic of the article. The lead includes a general description on sea turtles, but not the contents of the article. The lead is very straight forward and is not excessively detailed.
Content: Throughout the article, the content remains relevant to the topic and very detailed. the content of the article is up to date with current information. Within the article there are topics that don't automatically seem to evolve sea turtles, but the authors thoroughly explain the relations.
Tone and balance: Reading through the article, I don't notice and unneutral standpoints. All of the information seems factual. I did not recognize any heavily biased claims within the article. All of the viewpoint within that article are equally represented. There are no attempts to persuade readers in one direction. The information is fact based.
Sources and references: Throughout the article all of the facts are appropriately backed up by secondary sources. Many of the sources reflect reliably and available literature regarding the topic of information. Some sources are current and some are dated, but all seem relevant to the topic of the article. Out of the many links I clicked, 100% of them worked.
Organization and writing quality: The article seems to be very well written. I had no trouble with clarity. If I was unsure of a word, I was able to click an attached link to gain a better understanding. Overall, the article was an easy read. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. the article is broken down into clear and concise sections, with headers that open you to the specific subtopic at hand.
Images and media: The article offers educational images and images that correspond to each section. The images are captioned with good descriptions. The images follow Wikipedia's guidelines. The placement of the images is visually appealing, as they are incorporated into the text.
Talk page discussion: There hasn't been any talk since 2022, but the most recent communication shown seems to be mainly edits made by students from Wiki Education. The article is rated a level 4 vital article and there appears to be some Wiki Projects activity.
Overall impressions: Overall, I think that the status of this article is very good. Some strengths in this article would be the amount of detailed factual information, the abundance of cited sources, and the large amount of information it covers regarding the topic. I think that article can be improved with more images in the later topics that are discussed, and possibly more sourcing for the subtopics that only have one to two sources. I think that this article is well developed.