 | 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. |
This was one of the first topics that we discussed in this class, and I thought it would be interesting to analyze the Wikipedia page for it.
As far as I can tell, everything is relevant to the overarching topic of prehistory, and there was nothing particularly distracting.
The tone of the article is neutral throughout.
Perhaps it is because the training presented me with too high of a standard, but it does not seem as though each fact in this article is referenced. There are blocks of information and sentences that state things without linking a source anywhere. However, given my lack of experience in Wikipedia editing I would not be surprised if I am missing something here.
After opening the talk page, it is clear that there are some very heavy themes being discussed about the information provided in the article. I was also surprised to see that the article is rated as C-Class, when my initial impressions of the article were that it was written at a fairly high quality. I can see I have much to learn about the intricacies that separate good articles from ones that need work.
| 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. |
This was one of the first topics that we discussed in this class, and I thought it would be interesting to analyze the Wikipedia page for it.
As far as I can tell, everything is relevant to the overarching topic of prehistory, and there was nothing particularly distracting.
The tone of the article is neutral throughout.
Perhaps it is because the training presented me with too high of a standard, but it does not seem as though each fact in this article is referenced. There are blocks of information and sentences that state things without linking a source anywhere. However, given my lack of experience in Wikipedia editing I would not be surprised if I am missing something here.
After opening the talk page, it is clear that there are some very heavy themes being discussed about the information provided in the article. I was also surprised to see that the article is rated as C-Class, when my initial impressions of the article were that it was written at a fairly high quality. I can see I have much to learn about the intricacies that separate good articles from ones that need work.