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?[edit]

American bison

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]

I chose it because I am fascinated by Bison and their symbolic value to Indigenous cultures. I think it is a good creature for this class.

Evaluate the article[edit]

The leading paragraphs are long, but nonetheless informative and full of good information. They serve as a good summary to the topic of American Bison, and include historical, as well as biological information. They're also well sourced, with over 13 citations in just the leading paragraphs alone. The information included in the article covers most of the topics that one would want to know about the topic, with several "sub-articles" (such as Bison hunting) being included to flesh out various sections in their own right.

The article uses a variety of sources, and is written in an unbiased, factual manner, using neutral language that gives an impartial tone. The article also features a plethora of images and videos, which demonstrate different aspects of the American Bison very well. The talk page is mostly just a few users (only one with a signature) raising issues with the article, though not major issues.

Overall, it is a fantastic article, with little to no issues present. The only problem that I would raise is the repetitive use of a few images and videos, but this is more of personal taste than a real problem.

--Elijah Whalen (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Great bison belt critiques[edit]

Great bison belt

I chose this article because I feel that it can be improved in some places, and I think it fits the theme of the class very well. Bison pelts were well-valued by Indigenous peoples and by European settlers.

Evaluate the article[edit]

I think there are a few places where some better wording might prove more beneficial. For example, under the heading "Role of the bison," I'd like to add a time period to the sentence, "Humans had largely destroyed the megafauna of North America," to add more context to it (i.e. "By the turn of the 20th century," or whichever time period would fit best in that example).

"Humans had altered the landscape and ecosystems of the Great Bison Belt for thousands of years" might fit better as "For thousands of years, humans altered the landscape and ecosystems of the Great Bison Belt." I prefer this change because the first statement feels like the follow-up to a previous sentence, rather than the leading sentence of a new heading.

I'd love to know when we think Bison and other important fauna were first theorized to have entered the region. The article mentions that it became ideal for Bison grazing around 10,000, and that Paleo-Indians were known to engage in bison hunting, but it doesn't mention when Bison themselves were thought to have entered the region, perhaps by evidence in the archaeological record. I think the sources should be investigated for other similar temporal ambiguities that could be tweaked slightly.

The last two sentences of "Early history" feel like they could be combined into one sentence for brevity. (eg. "Before human intervention, the Great Bison Belt included much of central North America, and stretched all the way from Southern Mexico to Northern Canada, and from California to Virginia.")

Lastly, I think that the term "Great bison belt" is capitalized randomly. In some cases, "Great bison belt" is used, in others, "Great Bison Belt," and just "great bison belt" in one. It's a small change, but it could add some authenticity to the article. Maybe find how others have referred to it and use that?