User:Zymarax/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?

I am evaluating the Wikipedia article on Ahmad Reza Djalali.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I found it interesting and important, particularly due to its focus on human rights and wrongful imprisonment. Ahmad Reza Djalali’s case has gained international attention, and I was curious to see how Wikipedia presents the details of his academic work, arrest, and legal proceedings. The article covers a significant real-world issue, and evaluating it allows me to assess how well Wikipedia handles complex topics like political imprisonment and human rights violations.

Evaluate the article

The Wikipedia article on Ahmad Reza Djalali does a decent job covering his background, academic career, and wrongful imprisonment, but there are clear areas that could be improved. The article is mostly relevant to the topic, but the focus is heavily on his arrest, trial, and human rights violations, while his scientific contributions to disaster medicine don’t get as much attention. Since he was a well-respected researcher before his imprisonment, this part of his life should be covered more thoroughly to provide a balanced view of his impact. The content appears up to date, but given that his case is still ongoing, it would be useful to check for any new developments that should be added. Some sections, particularly the International Pressure section, feel repetitive, and condensing that information could improve the article’s readability.

The article’s tone is mostly neutral, but in a case like this where there is clear evidence of an unfair trial and human rights violations. Some of the language could be made stronger while still adhering to Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. There are points where the article states that his trial was unfair and that he was denied legal representation, but these could be reinforced with more direct references to international human rights laws. The Iranian government’s justification for his imprisonment is mentioned briefly, but it’s not explored in depth. While their claims lack strong evidence, it might still be useful to present and then critically analyze them so that readers understand the full picture.

When it comes to sources, most are credible and reliable, coming from organizations like Amnesty International, the United Nations, and major news outlets. However, there is a heavy reliance on Western human rights organizations, which while trustworthy means that perspectives from Middle Eastern legal experts, Iranian human rights activists, or scholars on Iran’s justice system could add more depth. While most citations work, some claims lack inline references, particularly those related to his health and legal process, and those should be fixed.

The article is currently rated as a C-Class article, meaning it’s decent but not well-developed enough to be considered a higher-quality Wikipedia page. To improve it, the article should expand on Djalali’s academic work, refine the wording to ensure clarity, include a wider range of sources, update any missing or outdated citations, and condense repetitive sections. Making these improvements would help the article move closer to B-Class status or even Good Article status in the future.