 | 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 chose to evaluate this article because it generally pertains to the content that we have been learning in class for the past few weeks. I wanted to see whether there was just as much information currently within this article as there seems to be during our class discussions. I had a fairly positive preliminary impression of this article, as it seems to have a substantial amount of references with lots of reliable information that I recognize.
I would say that the introductory sentence concisely defines the topic of the article, the rest of the lead section but doesn't seem to briefly address the article's major sections. The second paragraph describing the land management practices prior to initial human settlement seems out of place to me, and could be replaced by a description of the article's sections instead. The lead section properly contains information that's found in the article itself, with the first paragraph being nicely concise.
Generally speaking, the content of this article is relevant to the topic at hand. This is reminiscent of the information that we have discussed in class surrounding this topic. The content appears up to date and cites the recent research breakthroughs in this topic that have occurred over the last five years. Given that this article explores the prehistory of Australia, I would expect extensive information on the Aboriginal people, which I can say there appears to be. I currently cannot think of any content that appears to be entirely missing, but I think that there should more sources utilizes in the "Possible link to east Africa" subsection to ensure that this information is notable.
To me, the tone appears neutral, with no biased language or sway in the information. There has been considerable debate surrounding the dates associated with this topic, and I feel that while each viewpoint is briefly mentioned, it may be beneficial to go into more detail about minority perspectives.
Most facts appear to be backed by a reference footnote, but I feel that there should be more in order to strengthen the individual paragraphs of this article. There are many references, but the majority of the them stem from news websites that are meant to be written by qualified writers. I don't see too many scientific journals among the list of references but there should be more. If news articles have a reference list, then we should backtrack and go straight to the more reliable sources, like peer-reviewed articles, instead.
I don't see any spelling or grammar errors, which is a good start. The article is indeed broken down into sections, but some are rather lengthy and comprise of two topics. Such sections could be split once more in half. Overall, I am able to follow along with the article and see that it is easy to read.
The images provided in this article are well captioned and generally encompass the main sections. I would also make sure that every other sub-section or so, has a relevant image that encompasses the key points, especially if there is scientific data involved.
This article is rated at a level 5 on the vitality scale and C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, which doesn't seem ideal. For C-level articles, organization and piecing together the sections/information is recommended first. This article is apart of a few large WikiProjects, including that of archaeology, history, anthropology, and Australia. The Talk page primarily contains debates on the phrasing of information to emphasize neutrality and non-biased language, which is something we are typically on the same page on during our class discussions.
Upon further examination of this article, I have realized that there is indeed some more that can be done in terms of the organization of this article. This article does a good job of being neutral and full of evidence, but I believe that stronger references should be used and the information should be separated into further categories with more supporting images. I think this article is well-developed, but needs some organizing.
| 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 chose to evaluate this article because it generally pertains to the content that we have been learning in class for the past few weeks. I wanted to see whether there was just as much information currently within this article as there seems to be during our class discussions. I had a fairly positive preliminary impression of this article, as it seems to have a substantial amount of references with lots of reliable information that I recognize.
I would say that the introductory sentence concisely defines the topic of the article, the rest of the lead section but doesn't seem to briefly address the article's major sections. The second paragraph describing the land management practices prior to initial human settlement seems out of place to me, and could be replaced by a description of the article's sections instead. The lead section properly contains information that's found in the article itself, with the first paragraph being nicely concise.
Generally speaking, the content of this article is relevant to the topic at hand. This is reminiscent of the information that we have discussed in class surrounding this topic. The content appears up to date and cites the recent research breakthroughs in this topic that have occurred over the last five years. Given that this article explores the prehistory of Australia, I would expect extensive information on the Aboriginal people, which I can say there appears to be. I currently cannot think of any content that appears to be entirely missing, but I think that there should more sources utilizes in the "Possible link to east Africa" subsection to ensure that this information is notable.
To me, the tone appears neutral, with no biased language or sway in the information. There has been considerable debate surrounding the dates associated with this topic, and I feel that while each viewpoint is briefly mentioned, it may be beneficial to go into more detail about minority perspectives.
Most facts appear to be backed by a reference footnote, but I feel that there should be more in order to strengthen the individual paragraphs of this article. There are many references, but the majority of the them stem from news websites that are meant to be written by qualified writers. I don't see too many scientific journals among the list of references but there should be more. If news articles have a reference list, then we should backtrack and go straight to the more reliable sources, like peer-reviewed articles, instead.
I don't see any spelling or grammar errors, which is a good start. The article is indeed broken down into sections, but some are rather lengthy and comprise of two topics. Such sections could be split once more in half. Overall, I am able to follow along with the article and see that it is easy to read.
The images provided in this article are well captioned and generally encompass the main sections. I would also make sure that every other sub-section or so, has a relevant image that encompasses the key points, especially if there is scientific data involved.
This article is rated at a level 5 on the vitality scale and C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, which doesn't seem ideal. For C-level articles, organization and piecing together the sections/information is recommended first. This article is apart of a few large WikiProjects, including that of archaeology, history, anthropology, and Australia. The Talk page primarily contains debates on the phrasing of information to emphasize neutrality and non-biased language, which is something we are typically on the same page on during our class discussions.
Upon further examination of this article, I have realized that there is indeed some more that can be done in terms of the organization of this article. This article does a good job of being neutral and full of evidence, but I believe that stronger references should be used and the information should be separated into further categories with more supporting images. I think this article is well-developed, but needs some organizing.