 | 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?
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this topic because I have volunteered for many animal shelters and my family has fostered in many animals. This matters because many shelters protect animals that are treated with cruelty, and how America can prevent animal cruelty. My preliminary impression was that the article will do a good job of providing good sources of how the ASPCA will prevent animal cruelty.
Evaluate the article
Everything in this article is related to the topic, they do a great job of providing the history of the ASPCA and there is nothing that distracts me in this article. The article is up to date, they provide information from 2023 and provides a lot of recent information on the ASPCA. The article does a great job of representing historical populations in this article. I wish the article provided more visuals, a lot of words can be daunting to an audience, so seeing more pictures could help the audience visualize what the article is discussing. The article remains neutral throughout, they even point out a time where the ASPCA had to pay off a circus for false allegations and did a great job on that topic. There is no heavy bias to a particular subject. The article does well at providing information for some viewpoints, but there could me more information on the "Welfare of farm animals and horses" and "Animal relocation". The links work in this article, I clicked on three sources and all three backed the citation the author used in this article. Every fact provided has an article link next to it. There are neutral sources provided for each link. The sources do come from a diverse array of sources. The talk page discusses edits the author could make to help improve the article, and to help add information. The article is related because it provides improvements. The way they discuss the topic differs from us because they do not have a general discussion for the article, they only discuss to improve.
| 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?
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this topic because I have volunteered for many animal shelters and my family has fostered in many animals. This matters because many shelters protect animals that are treated with cruelty, and how America can prevent animal cruelty. My preliminary impression was that the article will do a good job of providing good sources of how the ASPCA will prevent animal cruelty.
Evaluate the article
Everything in this article is related to the topic, they do a great job of providing the history of the ASPCA and there is nothing that distracts me in this article. The article is up to date, they provide information from 2023 and provides a lot of recent information on the ASPCA. The article does a great job of representing historical populations in this article. I wish the article provided more visuals, a lot of words can be daunting to an audience, so seeing more pictures could help the audience visualize what the article is discussing. The article remains neutral throughout, they even point out a time where the ASPCA had to pay off a circus for false allegations and did a great job on that topic. There is no heavy bias to a particular subject. The article does well at providing information for some viewpoints, but there could me more information on the "Welfare of farm animals and horses" and "Animal relocation". The links work in this article, I clicked on three sources and all three backed the citation the author used in this article. Every fact provided has an article link next to it. There are neutral sources provided for each link. The sources do come from a diverse array of sources. The talk page discusses edits the author could make to help improve the article, and to help add information. The article is related because it provides improvements. The way they discuss the topic differs from us because they do not have a general discussion for the article, they only discuss to improve.