 | 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because it is about one of Roman Britain's governors who later became emperor for only 21 days. Therefore, it relates to the subject of the class but also the fact that he ruled an empire for only three weeks fascinates me.
Evaluate the article
The article’s lead is very concise and does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article’s topic. The lead does not, however, summarize the specific topics that are discussed throughout the article. There is also no unnecessary information mentioned in the lead that is not expanded later in the article.
The article’s content is related to the topic. The content is up to date having been last edited on January 19, 2021. I did not find that there was content missing or content that did not belong. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps.
The article was written from a neutral point of view. I did not find any claims in the article that appeared heavily biased toward a particular position. Furthermore, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented nor does it attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.
All the facts discussed in the article are backed up by both primary sources and reliable secondary sources that thoroughly reflect the available literature on the topic. Most of the secondary source are from the 21st century except for a few, one dating as far back as 1888. The sources are written by a variety of male and female authors. I could not find any unreliable sources such as news articles or random websites. There is one link provided that takes you to the JSTOR database and still works.
The article itself is very well written and easy to read. Each section is detailed yet concise and clear and contains no obvious grammatical or punctuation errors. Overall, it is very well organized and broken down into digestible parts that flow into each other nicely.
The article also includes a couple of images to help enhance the readers understanding of the topic. The images are well captioned and visually appealing. The images also appear to follow Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.
There are no discussions going on about this article in the Talk page and does no appear to be apart of any Wikiprojects.
I found that this was a reliable and easy Wikipedia article to read. It was well written, neatly organized and backed up by several scholarly secondary sources as well as original texts. I felt, however, that more could be added to the lead. Overall, this article was well developed and could provide a novice reader enough information for them to gain an understanding of the topic without it being overwhelming.
| 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because it is about one of Roman Britain's governors who later became emperor for only 21 days. Therefore, it relates to the subject of the class but also the fact that he ruled an empire for only three weeks fascinates me.
Evaluate the article
The article’s lead is very concise and does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article’s topic. The lead does not, however, summarize the specific topics that are discussed throughout the article. There is also no unnecessary information mentioned in the lead that is not expanded later in the article.
The article’s content is related to the topic. The content is up to date having been last edited on January 19, 2021. I did not find that there was content missing or content that did not belong. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps.
The article was written from a neutral point of view. I did not find any claims in the article that appeared heavily biased toward a particular position. Furthermore, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented nor does it attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.
All the facts discussed in the article are backed up by both primary sources and reliable secondary sources that thoroughly reflect the available literature on the topic. Most of the secondary source are from the 21st century except for a few, one dating as far back as 1888. The sources are written by a variety of male and female authors. I could not find any unreliable sources such as news articles or random websites. There is one link provided that takes you to the JSTOR database and still works.
The article itself is very well written and easy to read. Each section is detailed yet concise and clear and contains no obvious grammatical or punctuation errors. Overall, it is very well organized and broken down into digestible parts that flow into each other nicely.
The article also includes a couple of images to help enhance the readers understanding of the topic. The images are well captioned and visually appealing. The images also appear to follow Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.
There are no discussions going on about this article in the Talk page and does no appear to be apart of any Wikiprojects.
I found that this was a reliable and easy Wikipedia article to read. It was well written, neatly organized and backed up by several scholarly secondary sources as well as original texts. I felt, however, that more could be added to the lead. Overall, this article was well developed and could provide a novice reader enough information for them to gain an understanding of the topic without it being overwhelming.