User:Lmccale7/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 chose this Article on Art History because I really enjoy the concept of art overall, I think the history of art should be spoken about more. Upon seeing this subject my first impression was "wow, this is great" simply because I love every form of art.)
Evaluate the article
[edit](In this article on Art History, I think that everything that was written in this article is related to the history of art. While reading this article there was nothing that distracted me, I was more so intrigued to keep reading and digging for more information. There is nothing that is out of date. This article was created in June 2004 and have been getting updated every month since. I do feel as though there is more information that could have been added about the history of art. There are some gaps that was recognized and it's the gap between overall arts in America. In the contemporary art world there is said to be a cultural equity gap where a number of colored artists are mistreated and not recognized. (Culyler 2015) Overall, I believe that the writing and depth of the article could be improved.
In terms of tone, the writing is pretty abstract and straight to the point. I think that it is neutral. I don't think there are any viewpoints that are over-represented but plenty that's underrepresented.
All of the citations and links are up to date and credible. The information has been edited over 133 times, with the last update being on March 2, 2024 which was 7 days ago. The source now comes from many authors who are able to update and edit their facts on the history of Art.
Behind the scenes, there aren't any topics or conversations to my knowledge going on. This article has not been rated but it is apart of the WikiProject. The way WikiPedia discuss the topic different from what we talked about in class is by allowing editors from all over the world to post their credibility and what they have found as factual, on the other hand in class all journal entries and writing prompts are strictly from us, as learners with sources and credibility to back up our thought out facts..)