 | 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 as natural history and prehistoric creatures fascinate me. I really appreciate how our understanding of the world. evolution and even ourselves has drastically changed as a result of natural discoveries. This topic is important for people to understand as the fossil record presents a physical history to our planet that can be interpreted differently with time. The article was shorter than I would have anticipated and does not include many modern ideas past the 19th century. This information is often verifiable by primary sources.
The lead is very descriptive of natural history and is concise, although, the lead does not reference many of the other sections. The article seems to stop updating ideas past Darwin and lots of natural history breakthroughs have occurred since then. With as many sources as are provided, more information following Darwin should be available.
The article showed an informative tone with concise, organized writing. The sections are split up in a sensical way with related pictures to improve the reading. This article could be improved by updating it for the modern day and by possibly branch out into topics such as paleontology to cover other ideas in the field to get a more complete picture. The talk page describes edits done in order to remove excessive information that was not specific to the topic, such as a specific natural history museum.
| 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 as natural history and prehistoric creatures fascinate me. I really appreciate how our understanding of the world. evolution and even ourselves has drastically changed as a result of natural discoveries. This topic is important for people to understand as the fossil record presents a physical history to our planet that can be interpreted differently with time. The article was shorter than I would have anticipated and does not include many modern ideas past the 19th century. This information is often verifiable by primary sources.
The lead is very descriptive of natural history and is concise, although, the lead does not reference many of the other sections. The article seems to stop updating ideas past Darwin and lots of natural history breakthroughs have occurred since then. With as many sources as are provided, more information following Darwin should be available.
The article showed an informative tone with concise, organized writing. The sections are split up in a sensical way with related pictures to improve the reading. This article could be improved by updating it for the modern day and by possibly branch out into topics such as paleontology to cover other ideas in the field to get a more complete picture. The talk page describes edits done in order to remove excessive information that was not specific to the topic, such as a specific natural history museum.