 | 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. |
(Provide a link to the article here.)
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because it seemed close with what I'm learning in this course about Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse/ indisciplinary studies. Understanding academic disciplines is important for finding good information in school and college.
(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.)
Yes, the start of the article clearly talks about academic disciplines being different areas of knowledge you learn about in college or university. The beginning also gives a quick idea about what the article talks about, like the history of academic disciplines and how they work. The first part of the article doesn't talk about anything that's not in the rest of the article.The first part is clear and doesn't have too many details.
Content:
The stuff in the article is all about academic disciplines, which is what the article is supposed to be about. I'm not sure if all the information is really up to date because it doesn't say when it was last updated.
Sources and References:
The facts in the article have other good sources to back them up. It looks like the sources have lots of information about academic disciplines. It's hard to say if the sources are all up to date because they don't say when they were written.
Organization and Writing Quality:
The article is written in a way that's easy to understand and doesn't have too many extra words. I didn't see any spelling mistakes or things like that. The article is divided into parts that make sense and match what it talks about.
Images and Media:
The article has pictures that help show what it's talking about.
Talk Page Discussion:
I didn't see much talking about the article on the talk page. The article doesn't say if it's part of any special projects on Wikipedia.
Overall Impressions: The article about academic disciplines is well put together and explains things in a way that's easy to understand. It covers all the important parts of the topic and has pictures to help. But it could be clearer about when it was last updated, and it could say more about where the information comes from.
| 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. |
(Provide a link to the article here.)
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because it seemed close with what I'm learning in this course about Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse/ indisciplinary studies. Understanding academic disciplines is important for finding good information in school and college.
(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.)
Yes, the start of the article clearly talks about academic disciplines being different areas of knowledge you learn about in college or university. The beginning also gives a quick idea about what the article talks about, like the history of academic disciplines and how they work. The first part of the article doesn't talk about anything that's not in the rest of the article.The first part is clear and doesn't have too many details.
Content:
The stuff in the article is all about academic disciplines, which is what the article is supposed to be about. I'm not sure if all the information is really up to date because it doesn't say when it was last updated.
Sources and References:
The facts in the article have other good sources to back them up. It looks like the sources have lots of information about academic disciplines. It's hard to say if the sources are all up to date because they don't say when they were written.
Organization and Writing Quality:
The article is written in a way that's easy to understand and doesn't have too many extra words. I didn't see any spelling mistakes or things like that. The article is divided into parts that make sense and match what it talks about.
Images and Media:
The article has pictures that help show what it's talking about.
Talk Page Discussion:
I didn't see much talking about the article on the talk page. The article doesn't say if it's part of any special projects on Wikipedia.
Overall Impressions: The article about academic disciplines is well put together and explains things in a way that's easy to understand. It covers all the important parts of the topic and has pictures to help. But it could be clearer about when it was last updated, and it could say more about where the information comes from.