User:HighQualityWater/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?

Talk:Scientific literacy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I thought it was pertinent to the topics of this course. It matters because scientific literacy is necessary for a firm foundation for any scientist. At first I found the writing of the article to be chunky and transitioning between the different sections felt blocky and unnatural. I found the writing on the talk page to have been written in a flippant and unprofessional manner.

Evaluate the article

(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.)

Lead Section - The lead section does not contain an introductory sentence or describe the upcoming sections. It is overly detailed and contains an abundance of links for it just being the introductory sequence.

Content - The content is outdated. The most recent citation is from eight years ago. Scientific literacy is not a commonly identified equity gap, so the low quality of the article cannot be explained that way. The writing goes on tangents and detract from the main focus.

Tone and Balance - The tone starts off neutral but in the third section the viewpoint shifts and that disrupts the rest of the article. The article is unbiased and unpersuasive and is written in an informative manner.

Sources and References - There is a wide range of sources and viewpoints. However, a number of the links no longer work and at least one source appeared to be an unreliable, blog-type website. There are no sources from with the last eight years, all those that are listed are older.

Organization and Writing Quality - The organization of the article is poor. The grammar is well done and there aren't any spelling mistakes. While the article is broken into different sections, they don't flow well and that makes it difficult to read.

Images and Media - There are no images contained within the article.

Talk Page Discussion - The article is C-rated and part of the education, linguistics, and science WikiProjects. The talk page is written informally in certain sections, and there are gaps of years between the various entries. The talk page is written way more casually than what I was expected based on what was discussed in class.

Overall Impressions - Overall the article is in below average condition. Its strengths lie in the informative and unbiased writing, but it could use improvements in organization and general content. The article is underdeveloped, there is good content there that just needs some time and attention for improvements.