User:Harrowh/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]
The Baptism of Christ (Piero della Francesca)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]
I love this painting, and I wanted to pick an article that I knew something about.
Evaluate the article[edit]
LEAD SECTION. The main sentence is clear and concise. It is not as precisely organized as it could be; the point of Wikipedia is information, not elegant writing. It does include the controversy over the date of the painting's creation, which is good.
CONTENT. All of the content in this article is relevant to the the topic. The sourcing is a little old, but the painting is not new. I was surprised that there was no content about Italy requesting returns of its national treasures, but this painting was acquired legally, as far as I know, and perhaps it was not specifically mentioned.
ORGANIZATION. The organization is a little wonky. It is a short article, but if I were writing it I would organize it into several sections: history, construction/composition, symbolism, and timeline controversy. All of the subjects are mixed together.
IMAGES. Yes, this article contains an image of the painting. It follows all of the copyright rules, insofar as those apply to a painting that is several hundred years old. The image is of good quality and is well-captioned.
TALK PAGE. This page only has one comment: someone speculating that the painting is fake. No one chose to dignify this with comment. This article is a part of two Wikiprojects: Visual Arts, and London. It is rated as start-class and low-importance.
OVERALL. This article is basically a stub; it's got the basics but not a whole lot more. It's very clear and concise, and it's neutral, but there is a lot more information about this painting that is missing. I would say that it is underdeveloped. I'm glad I chose it for this exercise - there are many criteria to consider, and I would have become confused if I had selected a more complicated article - but I would definitely say that it is underdeveloped.