 | 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. |
Alchemy is an antiquated scientific field, often considered a precursor to modern chemistry. Alchemists were the scientific pioneers of their age and studying their methods and theories is conducive to understanding the history of scientific advancement. Frater Albertus is a more modern alchemist but the relevant Wikipedia article is underdeveloped.
The lead section is concise and clear. There are no other written sections, only relevant lists including his works. There is not enough content or general detail for the reader to understand Albertus and his work. The article carries a neutral tone and doesn't present any biases to the reader. The article lacks proper sourcing from reliable and credible academic sources. It is clearly written but the organization needs improvement. There are no pertinent images or photos in this article. Within the talk page, other Wikipedians expressed concern over content accuracy. Overall, the article needs more bulk, content, detail, and better organizations.
| 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. |
Alchemy is an antiquated scientific field, often considered a precursor to modern chemistry. Alchemists were the scientific pioneers of their age and studying their methods and theories is conducive to understanding the history of scientific advancement. Frater Albertus is a more modern alchemist but the relevant Wikipedia article is underdeveloped.
The lead section is concise and clear. There are no other written sections, only relevant lists including his works. There is not enough content or general detail for the reader to understand Albertus and his work. The article carries a neutral tone and doesn't present any biases to the reader. The article lacks proper sourcing from reliable and credible academic sources. It is clearly written but the organization needs improvement. There are no pertinent images or photos in this article. Within the talk page, other Wikipedians expressed concern over content accuracy. Overall, the article needs more bulk, content, detail, and better organizations.