 | 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 was thirsty at the time and it was in my recent search for some reason. It is also a B-class article so it is pretty highly edited and reviewed.
Lead Section
- The lead has an introductory sentence that is very informative of the topic. It tells basic background and origin of water.
- The lead gives a brief overview of what the article's major topics are and give some information about them.
- The lead does not include information that is not present in the article but it is a little over detailed.
Content
- All of the article's topics are relevant to water but some more than the others.
- The content is up to date as it was edited on the 8th of this month.
- I did not find any missing content or content that doesn't belong. Everything that the page has is relevant to the main topic.
- The article does relate to underrepresented populations in history. They did so by talking about the different cultural necessities of water and demographics.
Tone and Balance
- The article is neutral and has no bias.
- No bias is shown and no points are overrepresented
- There are no minority viewpoints shown and no positions of the topic are present.
Sources and References
- The article is reinforced with over 200 reliable sources. All of the information has links to the sources along with it.
- There are many current sources but a lot of older ones.
- There is a diverse amount of sources that goes from magazines, to people, and books.
- I don't believe there are many better sources available. This is a very reviewed and edited page so it is more credible.
- The links of the sources do work
Organization and writing quality
- The article is well written with clear material. Some of the information is complex and hard to understand.
- The article does not have any grammatical sand spelling errors
- The article is also broken down into many different sections that relate to the main topic which makes it organized and easy to find.
Images and Media
- There are multiple pictures at most sections which helps the reader understand the topic better.
- The images are quality and well captured.
- The images to adhere to Wiki's copyright regulations. They have sources.
- The images are laid out in an aesthetic and pleasing way.
Talk Page Discussion
- The conversations in the talk pages are talking about how they can contribute to the page and other articles that go along with the topic.
- The article is rated as a level 2 vital article in science and as a C-class by wiki.
- It discusses it as a vital and high up article but gives it only a C-Class rating.
Overall Impressions
- The article's overall status is a very good reliable article.
- The article's strengths consists of its organization and its sources.
- The article can be improved by making the content more concise.
- I would say the article is well-developed due to its high status.
| 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 was thirsty at the time and it was in my recent search for some reason. It is also a B-class article so it is pretty highly edited and reviewed.
Lead Section
- The lead has an introductory sentence that is very informative of the topic. It tells basic background and origin of water.
- The lead gives a brief overview of what the article's major topics are and give some information about them.
- The lead does not include information that is not present in the article but it is a little over detailed.
Content
- All of the article's topics are relevant to water but some more than the others.
- The content is up to date as it was edited on the 8th of this month.
- I did not find any missing content or content that doesn't belong. Everything that the page has is relevant to the main topic.
- The article does relate to underrepresented populations in history. They did so by talking about the different cultural necessities of water and demographics.
Tone and Balance
- The article is neutral and has no bias.
- No bias is shown and no points are overrepresented
- There are no minority viewpoints shown and no positions of the topic are present.
Sources and References
- The article is reinforced with over 200 reliable sources. All of the information has links to the sources along with it.
- There are many current sources but a lot of older ones.
- There is a diverse amount of sources that goes from magazines, to people, and books.
- I don't believe there are many better sources available. This is a very reviewed and edited page so it is more credible.
- The links of the sources do work
Organization and writing quality
- The article is well written with clear material. Some of the information is complex and hard to understand.
- The article does not have any grammatical sand spelling errors
- The article is also broken down into many different sections that relate to the main topic which makes it organized and easy to find.
Images and Media
- There are multiple pictures at most sections which helps the reader understand the topic better.
- The images are quality and well captured.
- The images to adhere to Wiki's copyright regulations. They have sources.
- The images are laid out in an aesthetic and pleasing way.
Talk Page Discussion
- The conversations in the talk pages are talking about how they can contribute to the page and other articles that go along with the topic.
- The article is rated as a level 2 vital article in science and as a C-class by wiki.
- It discusses it as a vital and high up article but gives it only a C-Class rating.
Overall Impressions
- The article's overall status is a very good reliable article.
- The article's strengths consists of its organization and its sources.
- The article can be improved by making the content more concise.
- I would say the article is well-developed due to its high status.