User:Simplygrey/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Black women in the American music industry

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article to evaluate because in my course this is the topic I'm most excited to explore. I chose this article specifically because I felt as if it did a great job informing the reader but I did notice the flags and felt like it good be a good article to breakdown and evaluate in order to make it better. I also, believe this article was worth evaluating because I felt like it could be used as a references or the basis of other articles closely related to this topic like Hip-Hop feminism.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead of this article briefly mentions what is going to be talked about in the article. It mainly is used by the writer to discuss the historical facts of the topic. Although the lead doesn't truly include unnecessary information I still think it could've mentioned the other subtopics a bit more so that people know what they are reading about related to black women in the music industry.

I would suggest to remove Hip-Hop feminism from under the category of R&B and its decadents in the article. I think Hip-Hop feminism is strong concept that black women in he American music industry have a true grasp of and it shouldn't be grouped with a the background and black women's influence in R&B and Rap. The content of this article is strong and relevant to the topic. I like how the writer includes the description of black women in all aspects of the music industry as artists, subject, and video vixen.

There are no heavy claims that stand out those me as biased or positioned. I think since it is coming from a minority viewpoint is can been viewed as a personal reflection but personal I do not receive that tone from the article.

The article does have a good array of reliable sources from videos and other articles. The writers seems to mainly use magazine articles when discussing specific individuals which can raise red flags to readers if not used carefully.

The article only includes 2 images and one is only well captioned. The other includes a wiki link but I believe the the writer should have still included a detailed caption.

This articles talk page does not include any discussion about the article except for one persons removal of a section. This article was rated a start class and is part of the media Wikiprojects. Wikipedia describes this article as low-importance. But when we discuss this topic in class it is a detailed and dominant discussion because music is such a universal language that its significant to everyone in the room.

Overall the article is underdeveloped but the topic is of great importance it just needs more information added in all sections of the article. The article has a strong foundation but with more examples and clear focus on one genre would strengthen it.