User:Vinchenstein/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?

Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate

I chose the Armored Core VI Wikipedia article because the game is relatively new, so I expected the article on it to have some errors/missing info. It seemed to have a decent amount of info however, when I investigated it.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of the article is quite well made, and includes an introductory sentence that describes the overall game quite well. It is also quite concise, and only has a few sentences and not too many, but has all of the necessary info. The lead section also mentions that the game received generally favorable reviews, which to me seemed like bias at first, however upon further inspection I realized that it did receive generally favorable reviews, though having that at the end of the lead section could still be looked at as framing.

As for the content of the article, it seems quite basic in some areas. The gameplay portion of the article is still missing a variety of aspects from the game, such as movement and the different types of legs you can use, among many other things. There are also no pictures whatsoever in the article, besides the cover for the game. The data in the article is quite new, coming from just the end of August as all of the references on the bottom of the page show, and the data itself is still quite accurate overall despite being so basic. I'm sure that they could have used better references as well, as many of them are news-related instead of being from independent reviewers, such as Destructoid. The article is also well written, appearing professional in all of the paragraphs discussing the various topics surrounding the game. I also noticed zero grammatical errors, which was good as well.

I also checked the talk page for the article, which is barren and has no posts as of now. Considering that the article is new, hopefully more will pop up in the future. Overall, I'd say the status of the article is that it is still new and needs some more content. All of the data in the article is accurate, despite the fact that there is very little. The plot synopsis is also very well made and detailed.