User:Freebeast24/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?

Ford GT

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to do the Ford GT's article because it was listed as an option under the evaluation list, and I think that second generation of the GT is one the best hypercars ever, certainly the best American one. It matters because this is the car that finally beat Ferrari at Le Mans in the 60's and saved Ford as a brand. My impression of the article was that it was very technical and was more like an spec sheet and sales brochure instead of a driving review.

Evaluate the article

The lead section clearly defines the topic at hand concisely. It doesn't, however, go over the major sections of the article. It also does include some information that isn't present in the rest of the article; there is some info about what movie the car was in, which isn't mentioned again.

The article's content is relevant to the topic. They talk about the different generations of the car, the different editions for each generation, the development cycle and performance specifications, etc. They also talk about the racing history and results that the car has. This content is up to date, and I can't think of any more info that someone could add to the article other than maybe critical reception/ reviews. The article does not deal with one of the equity gaps.

The article is neutral and doesn't really have any position on the topic at hand. Most of the information is factual and therefore is pretty free of bias. The info in the article is backed up by sources like news websites, auto news pages like MotorTrend, Autoweek, Jalopnik, etc. Some of the data concerning the performance and engine specifications are only available from Ford themselves, so that data isn't from a secondary source. However, Ford's official data is the most officially tested info available, and some of the data is backed up by independent testers. All of the sources are diverse and current (or at least the most recently useful info). I don't think that any other sources need to be used, and all of the links work.

The article is well written and organized and is free of grammatical and spelling errors.

The pictures show several angles of the car, along with photos of many of the special editions and the different race liveries the car has worn across different series. There could be more photos of the interior, and maybe more photos of the car in different drive modes with different aerodynamic setups, since those are mentioned but not shown.

The talk page of the article has been active since 2008, where the discussion is about a question over the actual production start date of the first gen GT. There are discussions about what to remove and add. There was even a full-blown argument over whether or not one well-known auto reviewer's comments should be added to the article.

This is a C-class article and is part of the Automobiles, sports car racing, and brands WikiProjects. This topic page is pretty consistent with the way that we have talked about articles in class, although I think the talk page was more involved and had more problems in it than I would have guessed. The article is in good status, and could use additions but is overall pretty good. I think that its coverage of the different editions and racing results was good, but there could be more about the reception of the car.