 | 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. |
I have decided to evaluate this article as arthurian folklore has always been an interest to me.
The article does give an adequate introductory sentance that summarizes what the article is about. The content is both up to date and does not have anything missing that is not present in the article. The lead is concise and is not overly-detailed. The article's content is up to date and relevant to the topic, it does not have anything missing or something that should not belong. The article goes into the history of the battle and the statements on some historians of the matter. The article is very neutral and does not have any persuasions in it. The sources in this article are adequate and are kept up to date, the reference links also work in terms of being opened. The article is well written and organized, there are no noticeable grammar or spelling mistakes. There are only 3 images for this article and they do correlate with what the article is saying, it is relevant. The conversations in the talk page are very organized, it as very pleasing to see! The talk page consists of information of the battle, POVs and legends. The articles strengths would have to be how the editors displayed the information given, Arthurian folklore can be hard to find as not many people actually read into the stories. That being said, while the editors worked with what they could find, the information seemed to blur together. The article itself was well organized but the paragraphs tended too wordy. Overall the article is well developed and has a surprising amount of information on the subject!
| 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. |
I have decided to evaluate this article as arthurian folklore has always been an interest to me.
The article does give an adequate introductory sentance that summarizes what the article is about. The content is both up to date and does not have anything missing that is not present in the article. The lead is concise and is not overly-detailed. The article's content is up to date and relevant to the topic, it does not have anything missing or something that should not belong. The article goes into the history of the battle and the statements on some historians of the matter. The article is very neutral and does not have any persuasions in it. The sources in this article are adequate and are kept up to date, the reference links also work in terms of being opened. The article is well written and organized, there are no noticeable grammar or spelling mistakes. There are only 3 images for this article and they do correlate with what the article is saying, it is relevant. The conversations in the talk page are very organized, it as very pleasing to see! The talk page consists of information of the battle, POVs and legends. The articles strengths would have to be how the editors displayed the information given, Arthurian folklore can be hard to find as not many people actually read into the stories. That being said, while the editors worked with what they could find, the information seemed to blur together. The article itself was well organized but the paragraphs tended too wordy. Overall the article is well developed and has a surprising amount of information on the subject!