 | 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 this article because I have used Python many times in the past, and so I know some things about the language. It's relevant to the course as a programming language, which covers both the linguistic and digital aspects of the course. At first glance, it looks pretty comprehensive, with lots of different categories covering different aspects of the language.
(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 article's lead section is very concise, with a good opening sentence that summarizes the article well. It does a good job covering the major topics of the article. The article's content is up to date, with additions made in the past few months. All of the content seems relevant to the topic, and there don't seem to be any major gaps of things that should be addressed. The topic doesn't really relate to underrepresented groups and/or topics. The article is written in a fairly neutral tone. There are some parts where it discusses the design choices and philosophical decisions behind certain features of Python, as well as aspects of how the Python community thinks, but these are clearly denoted as such, and not presented as facts. However, the article doesn't bring up any potential criticisms of the language, which is the main viewpoint gap present. The article has many sources, and most of the facts have a source linked to them, though there are a few that do not. The links seem to work and take you to the intended source. There don't seem to be a ton of scholarly sources compared to just regular web sources, and many of the sources seem to come from Python documentation, which has a larger influence over the article than other sources. The article is well-written and well-organized, and is laid out in a sensible and easy-to-follow way. There are not very many images, but the images present are helpful in illustrating the topics they are meant to show. The major talk page discussion happening on this article is about what may need to happen before applying for reassessment of whether the page can be marked as a "good article." It is not a part of any wikiprojects, but it is of interest to some, including Computing and Computer Science.
| 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 this article because I have used Python many times in the past, and so I know some things about the language. It's relevant to the course as a programming language, which covers both the linguistic and digital aspects of the course. At first glance, it looks pretty comprehensive, with lots of different categories covering different aspects of the language.
(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 article's lead section is very concise, with a good opening sentence that summarizes the article well. It does a good job covering the major topics of the article. The article's content is up to date, with additions made in the past few months. All of the content seems relevant to the topic, and there don't seem to be any major gaps of things that should be addressed. The topic doesn't really relate to underrepresented groups and/or topics. The article is written in a fairly neutral tone. There are some parts where it discusses the design choices and philosophical decisions behind certain features of Python, as well as aspects of how the Python community thinks, but these are clearly denoted as such, and not presented as facts. However, the article doesn't bring up any potential criticisms of the language, which is the main viewpoint gap present. The article has many sources, and most of the facts have a source linked to them, though there are a few that do not. The links seem to work and take you to the intended source. There don't seem to be a ton of scholarly sources compared to just regular web sources, and many of the sources seem to come from Python documentation, which has a larger influence over the article than other sources. The article is well-written and well-organized, and is laid out in a sensible and easy-to-follow way. There are not very many images, but the images present are helpful in illustrating the topics they are meant to show. The major talk page discussion happening on this article is about what may need to happen before applying for reassessment of whether the page can be marked as a "good article." It is not a part of any wikiprojects, but it is of interest to some, including Computing and Computer Science.