User:Ramirezd2/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 it because the topic interested me and was relevant to a course I'm currently taking, my first impressions of it are positive.
Evaluate the article[edit]
The lead in to the article is strong. It is concise, clearly describes the topic, and introduces the accompanying sections well. The content is relevant to the topic and seems up to date, as is was last edited in October 2021. The articles tone is neutral, and no positionality is exhibited in the text. However, in the "Description of the Tombs" section the author compares statues at the site with Buddhist statues claiming them to look similar in expression, but offers no scholarly source to back up this assertion. It may be a personal feeling and if not needs a citation to be mentioned. Regarding sources used, they are very few in number. Only two references are cited for the entire article, and many factual statements are not cited at all. The two sources used are relatively current, but from a simple Google Scholar search it is clear there are more useful sources on the topic that could be integrated into the article. Links appear to be in working order. The article is well written and properly organized, without any obvious spelling or grammatical errors. Images used in the article are generally helpful and relevant to the text, however, at the end of the article a section titled "Gallery" is filled with images, presumably of Astana graveyard artifacts. It would be useful if text were added explaining these artifacts, and better figure captions are critically needed in this section. That said, the images are laid out in a visually appealing way. This article has no open discussions on it's talk page, and is labelled C-class. It is also a part of 5 WikiProjects: WikiProject China, WikiProject Archaeology, WikiProject Death, International Dunhuang Project, and WikiProject Cemeteries.
Overall this is a strong article, with the assumption that it accurately covers the topic at hand. It could be improved by additional research, added citations, and better figure captions in the "Gallery" section. Also, sources appear in the "Notes" section but not in the "References" section, sources used for the article should be cited in the "References" section rather than in the "Notes" section.