User:Olivia Valcourt/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 am interested in Psychology and I had never heard of Social Inertia before
Evaluate the article[edit]
The article begins with a brief overview that describes the topic and gives a bit of background before going into more detail later on. The beginning section does not clearly outline the different sections but the article is short and consists mostly of examples of the term. The article does a good job giving equal weight to the different aspects of the topic and covered a variety of related concepts. I think the article could have done a better job at including perspectives on how the topic relates to minority groups rather than focusing solely on the idea broadly. The writing seems neutral for the most part but like I mentioned it would have been nice to see some other identities represented to give a fuller picture of the topic. The article uses reliable and relevant sources that are able to back up the information presented. The writing and organization is concise and flows nicely. It is easy to navigate from one section to another and the descriptions are clear and explain the concepts quite well. There are also no grammatical or spelling errors as far as I can tell. The article includes one image near the top that seems connected to the article material. There are a few comments in the Talk page most of which suggest expanding the article in one way or another. Overall the article is effective in communicating what the topic is and providing a number of examples of how it applies to the real world. I agree with some of the commenters that it could be improved with additional information particularly in going into more depth about what it is before jumping into the examples. The strengths of the article include it’s utilization of valuable sources and explanation of the various examples.