User:WikiauUS210/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?

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog - Wikipedia

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: The article's opening sentence gives an explanation to what the article is about, although I will still a little confused on what it exactly is. The lead then goes into description on the article's sections. The lead does not have any information that doesn't appear in any of the sections and is concise.

Content: Content is relevant to the topic, up to date (last edited September 20th), no missing content or unnecessary/unrelated content. They have a section for "see also" for information that is similar but not related.

Tone and Balance: No use of opinions, neutral with no bias. Fully an informative piece. No attempt to persuade the reader in any way or another.

Sources and References: Sources are a mixture of old and new, dating from 1993-2023. References are from a wide variety of sources. The links that I checked all still work, one was on archive.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is well written, not overly detailed or complicated, flows well and easy to read and understand. Broken down into sections to help follow along easier. No spelling or grammar mistakes.

Images and Media: The article includes the image of the cartoon that this topic is about. It is in the introduction so you can get a good idea of what it is right away. The other image is a modern recreation of the cartoon. It's not super important to have but does give the reader another visual idea of the meaning of the cartoon. Caption of 2nd picture is confusing and not explained.

Talk Page Discussion: People are discussing certain edits they think should be made, discussing if it is relevant or not. They also moved content from the page into the talk section because they didn't have references for it (labeled "unreferenced content moved to talk). It is rated GA-Class with mid to low importance on all aspects. It is under the "good" article criteria.

Overall Impressions: Overall, the article is pretty good but not perfect. It does a good job to explain the topic in a concise way but has some aspects lacking context. The article is well developed with a little bit more work to do.

Which article are you evaluating?

Stanford Behavior Design Lab - Wikipedia

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: The article's opening sentence gives a background on what the topic is. The details in the lead are a bit unorganized and doesn't really discuss the content that's going to be mentioned and mentions information that isn't mentioned in the content sections.

Content: The content has a lot of information that isn't entirely relevant to the topic. Content is overly detailed. It is up to date, last edit in August of 2024. "Notes" section is unnecessary and has no sources. This article also has a "see also" section. History section goes 6 paragraphs without a single source.

Tone and Balance: Article seems persuasive. Includes opinionated information, bias is present. Uses words like "best" and makes claims to make the Lab be viewed positively. the whole section of "notes" is opinionated and trying to persuade you to feel a certain way about the Lab.

Sources and References: A lot of the references are from the same source (Stanford). Article needs additional citations for verification. Sources are from 2020-2023 and the link number 10 does not work anymore.

Organization and Writing Quality: Poorly written, almost all of the information is in the "history" section. Doesn't follow well and not organized in a way to make it easy to follow. Bounced around multiple different subtopics in the history section.

Images and Media: There are no images in the article.

Talk Page Discussion: There's no discussion in the talk page. Rated Stub-Class, which is the second lowest class. Labeled as needing additional citations, and that it is written like an advertisement.

Overall Impressions: Overall, the article is poorly written and includes bias. The article can be improved by removing opinionated information, adding more verified information, and by creating a new section for the studies instead of throwing the studies in with the history section. The article is poorly developed and needs major changes.

Which article are you evaluating?

Field hockey - Wikipedia

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: The article's opening sentence gives an introduction on the rules of field hockey. The details in the lead are a bit more complex then needed to be, too much information that should be later in the article instead of the lead. Such as the whole paragraph about the details of the stick they use and the different ones that they use.

Content: There is a lot of content, although a lot of it is unsourced. It is up to date, last edit in September of 2024. There appears to be a lot of information that is unnecessary or overly stated. The sections with the positions and how the game is played could be simplified while still giving the same information. The content is all relevant to the topic. There are many sections that are related to previous sections and are basically the same thin just being written again, as well as having more than 5 paragraphs in sections that can be written better in just one or two paragraphs.

Tone and Balance: No use of opinions, neutral with no bias. Fully an informative piece. No attempt to persuade the reader in any way or another. Only issue is it says the article uses original research, which could be biased.

Sources and References: The article is missing a significant number of sources, pretty much in every single section. Includes both old and new sources, but most are not verified with a check mark. The links that I clicked on all worked.

Organization and Writing Quality: Does section the information well into different sections, however a lot of these are unnecessary and the quality of writing in these sections aren't concise. Not an easy article to read, goes into too much detail on sections that should be more concise and summarized. A lot of this unnecessary information is also unsourced, which further enhances the idea that it might be beneficial to rewrite it in a more concise way.

Images and Media: There are multiple images throughout the article. The images are all captioned. The images do provide extra context to certain sections, such as the goalkeeping section, as it gives you a better idea of what a goalkeeper is and looks like.

Talk Page Discussion: It seems there is a little bit of a discussion on the wording that's used in the lead. As someone isn't happy that it keeps getting reverted back to a wording they disagree with. This resulted in a back and forth where someone even had a passive aggressive response, "Well of course you would, you're Canadian". The article is Rated C Class, which is the fourth lowest class. Labeled as needing additional citations, that it has original research, and may need to be rewritten to comply with the quality standards.

Overall Impressions: Overall, the article is poorly written and is missing a lot of citations. The article can be improved in many ways, such as adding citations, as well as making the information more concise and easier to follow. The article does have good organization through the use of sections, although cutting down on these sections would be beneficial. The article does use the pictures in an effective way. Another addition I would add is a chart or section about the Olympic winners from field hockey.