User:Sydsor/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?

Editing User:Jenneizzay/Dr. Carolyn Barcus - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I wanted to review this article as it is on a person whose work I am interested in. I also found this topic interesting considering Dr. Barcus attended Utah State University.

Evaluate the article

Lead section: The lead section is accurate and provides a quick one sentence overview of the subject. It is concise and contains information that is also found in other sections of the article. It doesn't contain an overview of the article's major sections, but I don't think this is necessary considering the nature and length of the article.

Content: The content of the article is relevant to the topic. It is not overly detailed or too concise. The article could contain more information about the subject's career/research, but it appears that this section of the article is forthcoming and will be completed soon, as there is a heading for this section. The article's focus on a Native American psychologist meets criteria for topics related to historically underrepresented populations. The information is up to date as it references a source that was published this year.

Tone and balance: The article is written in a neutral tone and does not appear to overrepresent or be biased towards any particular viewpoint. Nothing in the article attempts to convince a reader of any particular viewpoint. The article focuses on reporting objective facts about the subject's life.

Sources and references: The article currently cites two secondary sources, one book and one article published in a peer reviewed journal. Authors of sources are diverse, and one of the publications was published as recently as two months ago. There is currently information in the article that is not supported by a reference, but this appears to be related to the article still being in progress. The links to the articles are functional.

Organization and writing quality: The article is well written. The article contained one typo that I corrected. The article is organized in a way that makes sense. However, the career section could be reordered to come before the research section to improve the flow of information.

Images and Media: There are no images in this article, so this section is not applicable.

Talk page discussion: There are currently no conversations on the talk page.

Overall impressions: The article's overall status appears to be in progress. Strengths of the article include its' tone and reliance on up to date secondary sources from reliable publications. Areas for improvement of the article include its' need for more information on the subject's career and research, and potentially reorganizing the headings to improve flow.