 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating? edit
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? edit
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I am interested in Carl Day because he initiated the Day law in Berea Kentucky leaving the students of color
Evaluate the article edit
- Is the article neutral? I feel like it is mostly neutral but it has a bias input toward the end.
- Are the sources current? It's a mixture between very old and ore recent sources.
- Are the images well-captioned? There are none.
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No the article has no pictures and needs some so people understand better who he is.
- What is the article's overall status? It needs to have more information and some pictures added. It's not very long or well projected.
- Out of curiosity, in what way do you find the article to be non-neutral? Negative statements are carefully sourced to a reputable historian. (And I was not able to find any photographs of Day that had reliable provenance - there's one on FindAGrave, but where did it come from?) DS (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)