 | 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. |
Evaluating content:
Everything in the article is relevant to the topic of the Peabody Hotel. The only thing that I would argue is a little unnecessary is when the article has a paragraph dedicated to other Peabody hotels around the nation. I understand why this is there in order to give the audience more context that Memphis is not the only place with a Peabody hotel, but I would argue that it is unnecessary for there to be a paragraph full of this information. I do not think any information is out of date and everything seems relevant. I would add how important the Peabody is to the Memphis culture and how it is an iconic tourist attraction when visiting the city. The article sort of made the hotel seem like a fancy hotel with walking ducks, when in reality there is a lot of history that has caused it to be the huge attraction in Memphis that it is today. I did not identify any notable equity gaps and I think the article is fine with representing historically marginalized populations as I did not see any concerns in that area when reading through. This article has a really strong base and not much to be improved on. Like I said earlier, I would include why it is such an iconic staple to the Memphis culture.
Evaluating Tone:
The article does a great job of being neutral and not giving any outward bias opinions towards the Peabody Hotel. It is very factual and not persuading the reader towards a specific point of view at all. All viewpoints are represented equally at the article discusses facts about the hotel's history, the current Peabody hotel, design features, etc.
Evaluating Sources:
I clicked on a few of the links under sources and they all worked and the information from the sources matches all of the information given in the Wikipedia article. The websites seem like very professional and good sources to get information from. Each fact is references with a reliable reference and throughout the article, people and sources are hyperlinked for the reader to easily access more information on what the article is talking about. All of the information in the article comes from the sources listed as the bottom of the article. All of the sources I factchecked seem neutral and no bias towards a particular point of view; they were very factual and informative. The sources at the bottom represent a diverse selection of authors and publications, as there are lots of different websites linked .
Checking the Talk Page:
The talk page has a lot of people working on this article for a few years. Some of the concerns related to this article are that it reads too much like an advertisement, instead of an encyclopedia which was eventually fixed. Another discussion on the talk page is about archived links getting added to the Wikipedia article. The article is rated Start class and is low importance on the project's importance scale. This article represents how we talk about Wikipedia in class as it reads as an encyclopedia and has a lot of people working on it over the years. It is amazing to see how much work and people have gone into creating such an informative and well put together Wikipedia article.
| 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. |
Evaluating content:
Everything in the article is relevant to the topic of the Peabody Hotel. The only thing that I would argue is a little unnecessary is when the article has a paragraph dedicated to other Peabody hotels around the nation. I understand why this is there in order to give the audience more context that Memphis is not the only place with a Peabody hotel, but I would argue that it is unnecessary for there to be a paragraph full of this information. I do not think any information is out of date and everything seems relevant. I would add how important the Peabody is to the Memphis culture and how it is an iconic tourist attraction when visiting the city. The article sort of made the hotel seem like a fancy hotel with walking ducks, when in reality there is a lot of history that has caused it to be the huge attraction in Memphis that it is today. I did not identify any notable equity gaps and I think the article is fine with representing historically marginalized populations as I did not see any concerns in that area when reading through. This article has a really strong base and not much to be improved on. Like I said earlier, I would include why it is such an iconic staple to the Memphis culture.
Evaluating Tone:
The article does a great job of being neutral and not giving any outward bias opinions towards the Peabody Hotel. It is very factual and not persuading the reader towards a specific point of view at all. All viewpoints are represented equally at the article discusses facts about the hotel's history, the current Peabody hotel, design features, etc.
Evaluating Sources:
I clicked on a few of the links under sources and they all worked and the information from the sources matches all of the information given in the Wikipedia article. The websites seem like very professional and good sources to get information from. Each fact is references with a reliable reference and throughout the article, people and sources are hyperlinked for the reader to easily access more information on what the article is talking about. All of the information in the article comes from the sources listed as the bottom of the article. All of the sources I factchecked seem neutral and no bias towards a particular point of view; they were very factual and informative. The sources at the bottom represent a diverse selection of authors and publications, as there are lots of different websites linked .
Checking the Talk Page:
The talk page has a lot of people working on this article for a few years. Some of the concerns related to this article are that it reads too much like an advertisement, instead of an encyclopedia which was eventually fixed. Another discussion on the talk page is about archived links getting added to the Wikipedia article. The article is rated Start class and is low importance on the project's importance scale. This article represents how we talk about Wikipedia in class as it reads as an encyclopedia and has a lot of people working on it over the years. It is amazing to see how much work and people have gone into creating such an informative and well put together Wikipedia article.