 | 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 is an S-class article relevant to my field of interest--couples counseling or coaching. Sex or lack thereof can be a critical issue in relationship or marital success and satisfaction. It is a pervasive, modern problem for many of the reasons mentioned in the article. My initial impression of the article is it lays a good bare-bones foundation for this topic, but the information could be expanded.
(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.)
[Redo from 6-8-24, which was inadvertently not saved.]
From the little I know at this point as a student and new Wikipedian, the lead is good, but the information is dated. In my search for articles thus far, there has been very little peer-reviewed research on this specific topic in recent years, at least regarding a traditional, heterosexual view of marriage. There are reams of information on this topic from unacceptable sources for Wikipedia editing, but perhaps newer searches will reveal more recent peer-reviewed journal articles. The content gives a good overview, covering many aspects of the topic, but more detail may be in order. I wanted to know more as I was reading it. The tone is neutral for the most part, but there do appear to be some value judgments here and there. The article seems well-balanced in terms of the many issues surrounding this topic under the section labeled "Causes," but I'm wondering if "Factors" or something similar would be a more appropriate heading. Additional headings could be added like "History," and "Religion," and "A Cultural Perspective." Information on the historical perspective of sexless marriages might add another dimension, as well as a bit about religion since this weighs so heavily on sexual mores in most cultures. It is also noted that multiple paragraphs under the "Causes" section of the article have no citations. The choice of the Edvard Munch lithograph is an interesting touch; however, a more up-to-date image might improve the article. In the Talk Page discussion, there are comments regarding deleting this article entirely as this topic appears to be covered by articles elsewhere; however, "sexless marriage" is a very relevant search term by the public in today's society and perhaps should continue as a singular topic.
| 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 is an S-class article relevant to my field of interest--couples counseling or coaching. Sex or lack thereof can be a critical issue in relationship or marital success and satisfaction. It is a pervasive, modern problem for many of the reasons mentioned in the article. My initial impression of the article is it lays a good bare-bones foundation for this topic, but the information could be expanded.
(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.)
[Redo from 6-8-24, which was inadvertently not saved.]
From the little I know at this point as a student and new Wikipedian, the lead is good, but the information is dated. In my search for articles thus far, there has been very little peer-reviewed research on this specific topic in recent years, at least regarding a traditional, heterosexual view of marriage. There are reams of information on this topic from unacceptable sources for Wikipedia editing, but perhaps newer searches will reveal more recent peer-reviewed journal articles. The content gives a good overview, covering many aspects of the topic, but more detail may be in order. I wanted to know more as I was reading it. The tone is neutral for the most part, but there do appear to be some value judgments here and there. The article seems well-balanced in terms of the many issues surrounding this topic under the section labeled "Causes," but I'm wondering if "Factors" or something similar would be a more appropriate heading. Additional headings could be added like "History," and "Religion," and "A Cultural Perspective." Information on the historical perspective of sexless marriages might add another dimension, as well as a bit about religion since this weighs so heavily on sexual mores in most cultures. It is also noted that multiple paragraphs under the "Causes" section of the article have no citations. The choice of the Edvard Munch lithograph is an interesting touch; however, a more up-to-date image might improve the article. In the Talk Page discussion, there are comments regarding deleting this article entirely as this topic appears to be covered by articles elsewhere; however, "sexless marriage" is a very relevant search term by the public in today's society and perhaps should continue as a singular topic.