User:Zeddd1/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Iron Throne (A Song of Ice and Fire)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.

Game of Throne is one of my favorite TV series，the Iron Throne as the symbol of blood and power that desperate scramble by various forces. The Iron Throne is made from a thousand sword and knives, that left a deep impression to me.

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.

This article begin with an introductory sentence that describe where the Iron Throne from, that concisely and clearly. The lead is simply two paragraphs, it dose not overly detailed, or include anything not matter.

For the content, this article has 4 content that all relevant to the topic, no missing content.

This article is quite neutral without any biased toward specific position. It present concisely and clearly that provide useful information to readers. It just have objective information on Iron Throne without any persuading.

For the sources, all facts backed up by reliable secondary source and reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources is mostly from 2014 or 2016. The sources is written by a diverse spectrum of authors with 48 different sources and authors. I check more than 10 links, and it all work.

I do not find any grammatical or spelling errors, this article is clear and well-organized, that broken down into 4 parts.

This article have image of the Iron Throne that same as its TV series, the images is well-captioned and its follow the wikipedia's copyright regulations. Also, the image laid out in a visually appealing way.

This article has been rated as C-class and has been rated as Mid-importance by the scope of Wikiproject A Song of Ice and Fire, also has been rated as Low-importance by scope of Wikiproject Novels.

In conclude, this article describe the Iron Throne in a subjective way, and provide useful information clearly and concisely. I think the strength of this article is its source that backed by 48 different resources, that make article more reliable. This article is well-developed. Form its editing history, It show 18 times editing history, which start in 2006, and the last editing is 2019.