 | 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? == Jonathan Leunbach
(Provide a link to the article here.) /info/en/?search=Jonathan_Leunbach
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I wasn't aware of who Jonathan Leunbach was until I was browsing sexology and found his name. My preliminary impression was, wow, this individual sounds like he made a difference in Denmark in regards to women's sexual reproduction rights.
(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 section of this article was concise and overall gave the reader great insight into who Leunbach was and what he did, although some of the information was missing a reference. Most of Leunbachs life, him being a socialist, having a respected name, organizations he co-founded, etc. this information does not have any link to a reference. Perhaps this information is stated in some references listed in the bottom of the article, but it is not explicitly linked. The sources seem current but most are not peer-reviewed, and all are written in Danish. The links are working links and almost all are very short, about a page in length.
Overall the article's status feels unfinished, as there are still many citations still needed to verify most of the facts of Leunbach's life. It is underdeveloped and could also mention Denmark's current day position in regards to women's reproductive rights.
Cameron Kletke ( talk) 18:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Cameron Kletke
| 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? == Jonathan Leunbach
(Provide a link to the article here.) /info/en/?search=Jonathan_Leunbach
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I wasn't aware of who Jonathan Leunbach was until I was browsing sexology and found his name. My preliminary impression was, wow, this individual sounds like he made a difference in Denmark in regards to women's sexual reproduction rights.
(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 section of this article was concise and overall gave the reader great insight into who Leunbach was and what he did, although some of the information was missing a reference. Most of Leunbachs life, him being a socialist, having a respected name, organizations he co-founded, etc. this information does not have any link to a reference. Perhaps this information is stated in some references listed in the bottom of the article, but it is not explicitly linked. The sources seem current but most are not peer-reviewed, and all are written in Danish. The links are working links and almost all are very short, about a page in length.
Overall the article's status feels unfinished, as there are still many citations still needed to verify most of the facts of Leunbach's life. It is underdeveloped and could also mention Denmark's current day position in regards to women's reproductive rights.
Cameron Kletke ( talk) 18:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Cameron Kletke