Evaluate an article edit
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Lucy Jones
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this because Lucy Jones is a Southern California earthquake celebrity! She is a well-known scientist and science communicator that many people turn to for accurate science information.
Lead edit
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation: edit
The introductory sentence is concise and clear. The lead should includes career highlights rather than a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead includes information that is not present in the article, and as a result, seems to be overly detailed.
Content edit
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Content evaluation edit
The article's content is mostly relevant - although it's section on public outreach could include more overview about Dr. Jones's public outreach work rather than a list of specific instances of outreach. The content needs updating, and should include more information about Dr. Jones's scientific work and public outreach work.
Tone and Balance edit
- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation edit
The article's tone is neutral. The existing content does not appear to have heavy bias and there seems to be a neutral approach to presenting information. There is little language to indicate persuasion or argumentation.
Sources and References edit
- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation edit
The facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources, but some of the links need to be updated.
Organization edit
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Organization evaluation edit
The existing article is mostly concise and clear with few grammatical and spelling errors. The existing sections are organized and appropriate but may need to be re-ordered when additional updated content is added.
Images and Media edit
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Images and media evaluation edit
Checking the talk page edit
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Talk page evaluation edit
The talk page has some comments regarding formatting and addition of new content. The tone of the conversations are not hostile.
The article is rated S - start class.
The article is part of the following WikiProjects:
- WikiProject Biography/ Science and Academia
- WikiProject Earthquakes
- WikiProject Geology
- WikiProject Physics
- WikiProject Women scientists
Overall impressions edit
- Guiding questions
- 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?
Overall evaluation edit
The article is a good start and provides readers with a general overview of Dr. Jones. It's strengths include its organization and neutral tone. It's content could be updated and expanded to include more of her academic and public-facing work. The article has a completeness score of "39" - and I generally agree that while the article has some good content, it could be enhanced to reflect more of Dr. Jones' accomplishments in her field.
Optional activity edit
- Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback
with four tildes — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: