User:Emzrohm/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](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because I am interested in studying reading someday, and this article provides a multi-faceted view of the topic. This article is not lacking in content; its a very long article with multiple sections covering different areas of reading.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
The article does a good job in that the lead section gives a general definition of reading and what else it entails. All of the content in this article revolves around these things. If anything, it seems that there is too much content in this article, but it covers everything from the history of reading to the science of reading and the way reading is taught. It would be difficult to make separate articles on these topics alone.
As for tone and balance, the content in this article is pretty neutral and unbiased. The sources are well-balanced and diverse, spanning from the late 1980s to present day. This means that this article is consistently updated to be in line with current information. The use of pictures of minimal, but most of them do not contribute to the article. Most of the conversations in the Talk section of the article are from the early 2010s, and most of the sections they recommended fixing either do not exist in the article anymore or have been fixed.
Overall, this is a very good article; it is extensive and very detailed. Some of the pictures could be removed, but that is the only negative about this article.