User:Vulpestooth/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because I feel like I have adequate knowledge on zoos and they are one of my main interests. Zoos matter for a number of reasons: such as conservation, research, and animal preservation. This article works to inform about zoos and their history. My preliminary impression of it was that it was very informational and provided lots of backstory to why zoos were created that I did not know.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article starts off clearly and concise, defining what a zoo is and what it does. The lead includes a brief description of the articles major sections and stays relevant to the topic. The article's content is informational, providing a history on zoos, including the bad and good, as well as how they help today. It also goes through the different types of zoos and what they do. The content is up to date and seems to cover all the topics that I can think of relating to zoos. The article also brings up humans in zoos, which often is glossed over or forgotten, covering to good and bad of zoos. The article remains in neutral tone, with a wide variety of viewpoints. All of the relevant information is backed up by sources and include historically marginalized individuals when relevant. Overall, the article is well written and organized. I did not notice any grammatical errors. All images had nice concise and relevant descriptions with proper sourcing.
In the talk section there is a lot of discussion about contradictions made in the article. It is rated B-class and is part of the project Zoo.
The articles overall status is decent but needs to be worked on. It is strong in describing the different types of zoo and the history of them. The article needs to be improved in the way it contradicts itself in a variety of areas, but this also comes with an article having multiple authors. I think the article is well-developed but still needs to be built upon.
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)