User:EdgarCorrale0619/Evaluate an Article
 | 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]
I chose this article to evaluate because I had to choose a topic from the list that was provided to me. I browsed the list to see which article stood out the most to me and "antiseptic" really caught my eye.
Evaluate the article[edit]
1) In the very fist quotation, the article accidentally tags "Germicide" a punk rock ban when it obviously did not mean to do it. 2) The article does a good job at introducing the topic and allowing the read to know what the entire article will be about. I also appreciate how the author included the origin of the word "antiseptic."
3) The layout of the article is coherent and the wording of the sentence is easy to read to follow.
4) As far as citations, the article did a relative great job are citing good sources (peer reviewed articles, textbooks, no advertisements/sellers). I really appreciated that the article stayed away from sellers even when the article was citing antiseptics.
5) The length of the article is short, however, it appears that the main focus of the article is to give its readers a brief introduction and maybe help them find some resources to further their research.