 | 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?
Nimbus Fish Hatchery - Wikipedia
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It is within my field of interest, and there is room for additional content.
Evaluate the article
Lead section
- The lead section is a bit brief; the introductory sentence is simply about the location and no further details.
- The rest of the lead section fails to mention much about the different sections of the article
Content
- Overall, the content is relevant to the subject of the article.
- Most of the content is detailed, but a bit of it is out-of-date. Updated fish population numbers, and a balancing of talk about the Weir Repairs and Complications section could be an improvement.
- This article does not represent topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.
Tone and Balance
- The tone seems balanced from a first read through, no inappropriate tone sticks out to me.
- The article is neutral, as far as I can tell.
Sources and References
- A few paragraphs include information that is not directly sources from one of the cited sources. (End of "History" section, "Concerns" subsection of the "Impacts and Concerns" section)
- The sources that are included seem thorough, and relatively current.
- It is not immediately apparent if the cited sources are written from a diverse spectrum of authors.
- Sources 6-8 are all dead links, as well as 15 and 16.
Organization and writing quality
- The article is clearly written, concise, and easy to read.
- I did not notice any spelling or grammar errors.
- The organization of the topic is relatively well done, but it does appear imbalanced in quantity of information per section.
Images and Media
- The article includes several images that are relevant and well captioned.
- All of the images present follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations (as far as I can tell).
- The images are laid out in a way that is neither appealing, nor unappealing.
Talk page discussion
- Several conversations about the quantity of content for each section was noted, as mentioned above.
- The article is considered Stub-class, and Low importance
Overall impressions
- The article is in a good place, but has room for additional content and correction of dead links.
- The article's strengths include a neutral stance, varied information on different parts of the subject, and clear and concise writing.
- The article can be improved by adding more working links relevant to the information, and possibly new sections on modern use of the facility.
- I would say this article is well-developed overall.
| 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?
Nimbus Fish Hatchery - Wikipedia
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It is within my field of interest, and there is room for additional content.
Evaluate the article
Lead section
- The lead section is a bit brief; the introductory sentence is simply about the location and no further details.
- The rest of the lead section fails to mention much about the different sections of the article
Content
- Overall, the content is relevant to the subject of the article.
- Most of the content is detailed, but a bit of it is out-of-date. Updated fish population numbers, and a balancing of talk about the Weir Repairs and Complications section could be an improvement.
- This article does not represent topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.
Tone and Balance
- The tone seems balanced from a first read through, no inappropriate tone sticks out to me.
- The article is neutral, as far as I can tell.
Sources and References
- A few paragraphs include information that is not directly sources from one of the cited sources. (End of "History" section, "Concerns" subsection of the "Impacts and Concerns" section)
- The sources that are included seem thorough, and relatively current.
- It is not immediately apparent if the cited sources are written from a diverse spectrum of authors.
- Sources 6-8 are all dead links, as well as 15 and 16.
Organization and writing quality
- The article is clearly written, concise, and easy to read.
- I did not notice any spelling or grammar errors.
- The organization of the topic is relatively well done, but it does appear imbalanced in quantity of information per section.
Images and Media
- The article includes several images that are relevant and well captioned.
- All of the images present follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations (as far as I can tell).
- The images are laid out in a way that is neither appealing, nor unappealing.
Talk page discussion
- Several conversations about the quantity of content for each section was noted, as mentioned above.
- The article is considered Stub-class, and Low importance
Overall impressions
- The article is in a good place, but has room for additional content and correction of dead links.
- The article's strengths include a neutral stance, varied information on different parts of the subject, and clear and concise writing.
- The article can be improved by adding more working links relevant to the information, and possibly new sections on modern use of the facility.
- I would say this article is well-developed overall.