User:Lonelychild1/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?

(Talk:Eastern Caribbean dollar.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I am from St.Lucia and then I got curious about what information wikipedia contains. Going Deeper into my investigation I saw a subtopic of the currency and I remembered that the queen of England passed away recently and this led me to pick this topic due to her being the face of St. Lucia's currency.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

Yes the article introductory sentence clearly exhibits and concisely identifies the topic of the article.
The lead does not include a brief description about the major sections in the article.
No, the lead contains information that is present throughout the article.
The lead is very concise.

Content

The content in this article is relevant to the topic.
The content in the article is up date.
The article covers everything about the topic and there is no information missing.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral and talks about the topic without any focus towards to any one area nor any persuasion used in the contents of the article.
All points are accurately represented without any bias.

Sources and References

Sources in the article leads to a reliable secondary source and reflect the information present in the article.
These sources are up to date and are provided by a few authors, institutions and organizations. The links in the article works and provides with the extra information needed further to understand content.

Organization and writing quality

The article is very well written with little too few grammatical errors. The organization of the article was very done with categories that gave information to understand the next topic. The use of tables helped make the article more presentable and readable.

Images and Media

Many images of the currency along with captions describing the amount of the faces on the bills were accurately labelled and displayed. The images are update because recently the bills where change and they are accurately represented. The images apply with the copyrights regulations of wikipedia.

Talk page discussion

The article is rated C and is rated as high importance. The talk page includes discussions about the material of the currency and a few discussions about the date of a switch from its previous name to it current name.

Overall Impression

My overall impression of the article was that it was very written but more information could be added to give a more broaden view of the currency. The organization of the article was very done, the tables, pictures and captions with links were very helpful to learn more about organizations and people who associated with the currency.