 | 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 the Arab Spring article because it was a C-class article and because I think some of the information listed on the Wiki page might be easier to confirm or deny because the Arab Spring had such a large impact on the Middle East, parts of Africa, and arguably, the rest of the world because many essential resources like oil or precious metals come from the countries affected.
Evaluating an article on the Arab Spring matters because of the aforementioned implications it has for the directly impacted countries as well as countries who have trade or diplomatic relationships with the directly impacted countries. It also is important to ensure that information surrounding Islam, the Middle East, Africa, and the conflicts that occur or have occurred there is correct so as to prevent the spread of misinformation that could result in internalized bias against those involved or impacted by the Arab Spring.
My first impression of the article was greatly impacted by its rating as a c-class article. I expected it to be disorganized, choppy, possibly factually incorrect, and possibly biased. I found that the article was indeed choppy and disorganized--it bounced from country to country, only listing short bits about conflicts, occurrences, or important figures without very much context or follow-up.
Evaluate the article
(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.)
In short, it was disorganized, and detailed while simultaneously lacking information. Additionally, some of the statements made, such as "with the Syrian pound plunging to new lows" as a response to the Syrian Civil War, are vague to the point of possible misinterpretation. Statements like those can easily be fixed by removing the figurative speech and providing clear details. Some of the information provided was not relevant - there was a long section on how social media impacted or fed into the Arab Spring even though many of the countries didn't have clear integration of social media at that point. I was also confused at first because I thought it would have been an article on the late 1960's Arab Spring, however, it was mainly about the Arab Spring in the 2010s (but that is likely my own bias manifesting).
Much of the sources were from biased news organizations (both liberal and conservative) which leads me to believe that the collected information displayed on the page might not be the most objective.
Some of the context that was provided didn't clearly associate with the actual Arab Spring. The article mentions a quote from a former US Ambassador about his assessment of a country and then proceeds to use that quote to lead into discussion of conflicts within the country--it didn't seem necessary or relevant. There also didn't appear to be many first-hand accounts or sources that could give insight into the conditions leading up to, during, and after the Spring.
It appears as though the article needs a thorough cleaning to remove unnecessary or irrelevant details, to remove biased sources, to remove biased and vague speech, to incorporate a more equitable or representative voice, and to organize it.
| 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 the Arab Spring article because it was a C-class article and because I think some of the information listed on the Wiki page might be easier to confirm or deny because the Arab Spring had such a large impact on the Middle East, parts of Africa, and arguably, the rest of the world because many essential resources like oil or precious metals come from the countries affected.
Evaluating an article on the Arab Spring matters because of the aforementioned implications it has for the directly impacted countries as well as countries who have trade or diplomatic relationships with the directly impacted countries. It also is important to ensure that information surrounding Islam, the Middle East, Africa, and the conflicts that occur or have occurred there is correct so as to prevent the spread of misinformation that could result in internalized bias against those involved or impacted by the Arab Spring.
My first impression of the article was greatly impacted by its rating as a c-class article. I expected it to be disorganized, choppy, possibly factually incorrect, and possibly biased. I found that the article was indeed choppy and disorganized--it bounced from country to country, only listing short bits about conflicts, occurrences, or important figures without very much context or follow-up.
Evaluate the article
(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.)
In short, it was disorganized, and detailed while simultaneously lacking information. Additionally, some of the statements made, such as "with the Syrian pound plunging to new lows" as a response to the Syrian Civil War, are vague to the point of possible misinterpretation. Statements like those can easily be fixed by removing the figurative speech and providing clear details. Some of the information provided was not relevant - there was a long section on how social media impacted or fed into the Arab Spring even though many of the countries didn't have clear integration of social media at that point. I was also confused at first because I thought it would have been an article on the late 1960's Arab Spring, however, it was mainly about the Arab Spring in the 2010s (but that is likely my own bias manifesting).
Much of the sources were from biased news organizations (both liberal and conservative) which leads me to believe that the collected information displayed on the page might not be the most objective.
Some of the context that was provided didn't clearly associate with the actual Arab Spring. The article mentions a quote from a former US Ambassador about his assessment of a country and then proceeds to use that quote to lead into discussion of conflicts within the country--it didn't seem necessary or relevant. There also didn't appear to be many first-hand accounts or sources that could give insight into the conditions leading up to, during, and after the Spring.
It appears as though the article needs a thorough cleaning to remove unnecessary or irrelevant details, to remove biased sources, to remove biased and vague speech, to incorporate a more equitable or representative voice, and to organize it.