 | 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?
Ogallala Aquifer
== Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? == Because it is fascinating
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
(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.)
The lead paragraph is informative on the aquifer and its name. There is a description of the articles major sections and it has a good overview and summary about what the article is going at. It is fairly concise and is very informative.
It is informative about the formation of the aquifer as wells as current uses in irrigation. The article was last edited 1 month ago. From what I can tell there isn’t much information that wasn’t added. There isn’t a lot of information on the human interaction before settlers and the naming by a geologist in 1898.
The article is very neutral only stating facts and information about the aquifer and a little about contention over the usage of the land and irrigation. This article doesn’t really argue a point and merely comments on issues surrounding the topic.
There are many good sources cited in the article. There were over 50 different sources used. There are a variety of different sources used. There are always more sources that could be used, however I don’t have any to add right now.
There are multiple images that are well sourced and relevant to the topic of the paragraph they are next to.
There aren’t a lot of added comments most of the things added and edited are related to linking different facts added. Also a lot of the comments were made up to 10 years ago so there are considerable difference between then and now.
The overall status is well flushed out with many good details and sources related to the topic. The article could be improved by adding information relevant to the people who live in the area and how they are impacted as well as possible future impacts of draining the aquifer.
| 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?
Ogallala Aquifer
== Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? == Because it is fascinating
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
(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.)
The lead paragraph is informative on the aquifer and its name. There is a description of the articles major sections and it has a good overview and summary about what the article is going at. It is fairly concise and is very informative.
It is informative about the formation of the aquifer as wells as current uses in irrigation. The article was last edited 1 month ago. From what I can tell there isn’t much information that wasn’t added. There isn’t a lot of information on the human interaction before settlers and the naming by a geologist in 1898.
The article is very neutral only stating facts and information about the aquifer and a little about contention over the usage of the land and irrigation. This article doesn’t really argue a point and merely comments on issues surrounding the topic.
There are many good sources cited in the article. There were over 50 different sources used. There are a variety of different sources used. There are always more sources that could be used, however I don’t have any to add right now.
There are multiple images that are well sourced and relevant to the topic of the paragraph they are next to.
There aren’t a lot of added comments most of the things added and edited are related to linking different facts added. Also a lot of the comments were made up to 10 years ago so there are considerable difference between then and now.
The overall status is well flushed out with many good details and sources related to the topic. The article could be improved by adding information relevant to the people who live in the area and how they are impacted as well as possible future impacts of draining the aquifer.