 | 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?
I chose this article because it is directly related to the comparative development course I am taking. While this class focuses on more than just human development, it is good to have a little background in it. My first impression of this article is that it is long but each section is around the same length. In one of the training courses it said that was a way to spot a good article.
Evaluate the article
The lead has a very straightforward introductory sentence. It includes a brief description of the article and includes only present things. All content seems to be relevant and up to date. The parts are mostly equally represented, some of the more general groups are a little longer but they do have more information to cover. I think the linear growth article could have been broken up to make it more understandable. The adulthood section lacks tons of material that could be listed. There is a neutral point of view throughout the article. I cannot seem to find any bias in this article. All sources and references seem to be from textbooks, papers, medical associations and foundations. Some older references are listed but mostly things from 2005 to the present day. Every link I clicked worked. The article looks clear and concise. The last section, linear growth, was a tad confusing with the IGF information, but it does have links you can click on to learn more. There are only 2 images and one graph in this article. They seem to be correct based off copyright polices. Very short but to the point captions. The talk page is mainly conversations about missing material. Some life phases were missing, and some topics were empty. It is a C-class article. This article could really be improved if more pictures were added. Each development stage could have its own image. One of this article’s strengths is its neutral point of view. It seems like the community has come together to make it very neutral. This article could use some work. It needs to be developed further in the adulthood section and with images.
| 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?
I chose this article because it is directly related to the comparative development course I am taking. While this class focuses on more than just human development, it is good to have a little background in it. My first impression of this article is that it is long but each section is around the same length. In one of the training courses it said that was a way to spot a good article.
Evaluate the article
The lead has a very straightforward introductory sentence. It includes a brief description of the article and includes only present things. All content seems to be relevant and up to date. The parts are mostly equally represented, some of the more general groups are a little longer but they do have more information to cover. I think the linear growth article could have been broken up to make it more understandable. The adulthood section lacks tons of material that could be listed. There is a neutral point of view throughout the article. I cannot seem to find any bias in this article. All sources and references seem to be from textbooks, papers, medical associations and foundations. Some older references are listed but mostly things from 2005 to the present day. Every link I clicked worked. The article looks clear and concise. The last section, linear growth, was a tad confusing with the IGF information, but it does have links you can click on to learn more. There are only 2 images and one graph in this article. They seem to be correct based off copyright polices. Very short but to the point captions. The talk page is mainly conversations about missing material. Some life phases were missing, and some topics were empty. It is a C-class article. This article could really be improved if more pictures were added. Each development stage could have its own image. One of this article’s strengths is its neutral point of view. It seems like the community has come together to make it very neutral. This article could use some work. It needs to be developed further in the adulthood section and with images.