User:Kobef13/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]I think it is very interesting to see how we have evolved in communication of ending messages and message chains.
Evaluate the article
[edit]There is not much of an introduction to this page. There is one sentence describing what end of message or EOM means. I would say it is clear and short but too short. The lead does not contain major sections of the articles. The lead does not include information that is not used throughout the page. The lead is concise but is too short.
The content within the article is relevant to the topic. The information is not out of date. I do believe that there is some information missing. I think that an additional section could be added showing how throughout time message endings have changed and how message endings vary between which type of communication the message was sent.
The tone of this article is neutral. There are no claims which heavily bias anyone or anything in particular. There is no under or overrepresentation of a certain thought or idea.
There is a pop-up at the top of this page saying that more sources are needed to verify the information. From the few sources that are used they seem credible and are from a variety of authors. They seem credible but more research would need to be done in order to verify them. The sources are current and the links to them work.
The article is very clear, concise, and easy to read. No grammatical errors or spelling errors are present that I can find. The organization of the article seems sufficient.
There are no images or media on this page.
The talk page is barren. There is only one post on it showing why someone feels that an edit was incorrect and should not be included in this page. The article is not rated nor is it a part of any WikiProjects. We have not talked about this topic in class.
The articles overall status is incomplete. More citations need to be added to sufficiently adhere to Wikipedia's liking. The strength of this article is it is a very short and easy read. There is no excess information that needs to be sifted through in order to find what an individual may be looking for. The article could use further development.