User:Nathangooi/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]The Year of the Four Emperors is related to the Roman history of this course, and also contained a lack of references within the article.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section - The lead section provides a good overview of the article, providing major details that allow the reader to achieve a concise overview. It includes a brief description of of the articles major sections, in chronological order. The lead section is not overly detailed and does not include information that is not present in the article
Content - The article contains content that is relevant to the topic and appears to be up-to-date. The content is neither missing nor contain content that does not belong. The article does not have deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.
Tone and Balance - Throughout the whole article, a neutral point of view is established. There are no claims that are biased. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. There are no minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described. The article does not try to persuade the reader in anyway.
Sources and References - This article contains a general list of references. A lot of facts are not backed up by sources. The sources provided are thorough. Majority of the sources are about a century old. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors but do lack the voice of marginalized individuals. The sources provided are peer-reviewed articles, but the article does lack sources. Every source referenced is accessible.
Organization and writing quality - The article is well-written, clear and easy to read. It does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors. It is organized in chronological order of the history, providing major points of the topic.
Images and media - The article contains images that do not enhance the understanding of the topic. The images provided do not contain detailed captions. The images adhere Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are laid out to compliment the adjacent paragraph, making it appealing to the reader.
Talk page discussion - Within the talk page, conversations of confusion and errors were talked about. This article is rated as C-class and there are two Wikiprojects that it is apart of. The Military history and Classical Greece and Rome Wikiprojects.
<nowiki>Overall impressions - The article's overall status is good, but it lacks sources and references to help back up the facts. The article also lacks images that help the enhance the understanding of the topic, and with that the caption of the images are not detailed. This article is not complete, as it lacks references but is somewhat developed. Nathangooi (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)