 | 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. |
This article was chosen because it is an interesting subject relating to what my current course will be touching on as a whole. I chose preservation metadata over metadata because the narrower focus seemed like a good way to understand how to evaluate an article being that it is more specific and smaller in length/depth. Preservation metadata is an important subset of metadata because it allows for a proper means of preserving digital information and having an article discussing this topic specifically denotes this. The article at first read through, seems to touch many of the significant factors for understanding fully what preservation metadata is and its importance. It includes why preservation metadata exists, why it is necessary, what it covers and how it is used, its relation to metadata as a larger topic, and its state of progression.
The lead simply and efficiently described the topic in the first sentence while giving a more overarching definition of preservation data and its existence as a subset of metadata. The article is balanced in terms of how much each section is covered and it is presented in a neutral, direct way that references and credit's external sources that utilize applicable information. The writing of the article was concise, easily understandable, and organized in a logical order.
As for the progression in quality of the article in conjunction with what was brought up in the Talk page, with the 2019 evaluation, it seems that the article was not adjusted to what was recommended. One such way being that the repetition in the lead sentence was not altered as suggested. Other than this it appears some changes were made and being that it is listed as start status for the two active projects out of the three total, additional work could be done and information beyond the basics added to create more depth to the article. I think that the article as it is is well developed in a way that allows for a concise understanding of the material, but it could be built up further if desired.
| 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. |
This article was chosen because it is an interesting subject relating to what my current course will be touching on as a whole. I chose preservation metadata over metadata because the narrower focus seemed like a good way to understand how to evaluate an article being that it is more specific and smaller in length/depth. Preservation metadata is an important subset of metadata because it allows for a proper means of preserving digital information and having an article discussing this topic specifically denotes this. The article at first read through, seems to touch many of the significant factors for understanding fully what preservation metadata is and its importance. It includes why preservation metadata exists, why it is necessary, what it covers and how it is used, its relation to metadata as a larger topic, and its state of progression.
The lead simply and efficiently described the topic in the first sentence while giving a more overarching definition of preservation data and its existence as a subset of metadata. The article is balanced in terms of how much each section is covered and it is presented in a neutral, direct way that references and credit's external sources that utilize applicable information. The writing of the article was concise, easily understandable, and organized in a logical order.
As for the progression in quality of the article in conjunction with what was brought up in the Talk page, with the 2019 evaluation, it seems that the article was not adjusted to what was recommended. One such way being that the repetition in the lead sentence was not altered as suggested. Other than this it appears some changes were made and being that it is listed as start status for the two active projects out of the three total, additional work could be done and information beyond the basics added to create more depth to the article. I think that the article as it is is well developed in a way that allows for a concise understanding of the material, but it could be built up further if desired.