User:Wikieditor933/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?

Christine Michel Carter

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to evaluate this article because it is an article about women's rights that is classifies as a start class article with low importance.

Evaluate the article

(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.)

Lead Section

The lead section of this article is concise and straight to the point. However, the lead section fails to list the articles main sections and does not provide a brief overview of the article. If a reader wants a quick overview of the article they will not find it in this lead section.

Content

The articles content is relevant to the topic. It content includes important aspects of Carter's life such as her writing career and her work in advocacy. The section titled "Personal Life", however, discusses Carter's marriage particularly her divorce with her husband. This piece of information seems out of place within the article's main focus on women's rights.

Tone

The article has an academic tone with no indicated bias.

Sources and References

This article contains multiple sources that are relevant to the topic. Most of the sources are current and up to date. However, there is a lack of scholarly sources. The sources found in this article mainly originate from some blogs and websites. Nevertheless, the sources in this article are appropriate for the topic at hand. There are multiple links which are relevant and provide additional information for the reader.

Organization

The article does have organization and structure. However, there is only one main section which discusses her career. There could also be more information added to this section.

Images

The article contains some images and media that are relevant to the topic. All media used in the article are properly labeled and abide by Wikipedias copyright policy.

Talk Page

The articles talk page currently has no ongoing discussions.

Overall Impressions

The article is rated as a C-class article. The article provides some basic information about Christine Michel Carter and her career. Its organization is clear and well-structured which makes the article easy to navigate. Its tone is also unbiased and academic. However, the article could use more information in its lead section in order to provide readers with a basic overview. It could also do without some irrelevant information such as Carter's divorce and her marriage life which does not contribute anything of significance to the article.