![]() | 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. |
It is the article I will be editing for my project. It matters because it it the language spoken by many people in the Antilles. My preliminary impression was that it was fairly good, but the variety sections are quite short.
It has a good lead section, but none of the information in the history section has reference to the place it came from! This is very bad. I also think it could be more balanced by adding more information the the varieties. The tone seems neutral. The article's status is a stub, and now that I've looked at it more in depth, I agree. The strengths are that the article had a good start of information, but a weakness is that much of it isn't cited. There is a variety of references, but not enough for the numerous varieties it covers. There is not much talk happening in the talk page, so I don't think people are actively editing it. ClimbingGal ( talk) 03:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
It is the article I will be editing for my project. It matters because it it the language spoken by many people in the Antilles. My preliminary impression was that it was fairly good, but the variety sections are quite short.
It has a good lead section, but none of the information in the history section has reference to the place it came from! This is very bad. I also think it could be more balanced by adding more information the the varieties. The tone seems neutral. The article's status is a stub, and now that I've looked at it more in depth, I agree. The strengths are that the article had a good start of information, but a weakness is that much of it isn't cited. There is a variety of references, but not enough for the numerous varieties it covers. There is not much talk happening in the talk page, so I don't think people are actively editing it. ClimbingGal ( talk) 03:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)