User:User123blue/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?

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I am an athlete and I have been through this injury two times and I think it is really interesting to know about all the process of the ACL reconstruction, the rehabilitation process and the different options they have to reconstruct the knee. My first impression of this article was really good, I realized that this article is a B-class article so I think it is pretty good. It looks organized, they have images and they have everything explained and cited.

Evaluate the article

I think this article is pretty good. The page was las edited on 28 November 2023 and I would consider that means this article is up to date, even though medicine and science change and evolve every single day, the content of this article looks good.

As I was reading it I have realized that in some parts of the article it says "citation needed" or it says "medical citation needed" and I am not sure if that means they should make some changes or updates at the end of those sentences or paragraphs.

If we want to evaluate the tone of the article, I think the article is in a neutral tone.

If we go ahead and evaluate the sources, the links work correctly and the citations look correct. In the references part, they have 42 different citations and that makes the article even better because the sources seem to be realiable sources and the information comes from diverse articles.

I went to take a look at the Talk Page and one person shared some pictures of his knee and it was nice to read how someone said that was a great idea and it was going to make the article even cooler. Someone used that page to ask for help too and I didn´t know you could do that. It is cool that someone said that it would be nice to have some background history and talk about when did it first become available and what technology made it possible...

This article seems ot be part of a wiki project but I am not sure.