 | 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. |
Woodland Park, CO
I lived here for 14 years and I think I can increase perception of the town by giving it more (notable) representation on Wikipedia.
- Lead Section:
- -Introductory sentence is informative if a bit wordy and conceptual, detailing Woodland Park as a home rule municipality, which I didn't realize was a thing despite living in Colorado for 14 years.
- - The article outlines the major sections in a "Contents" bubble but doesn't describe them in the lead section.
- - The municipality information in the lead section is not present in the rest of the article. The fact of WP being a bedroom community also is not addressed further in the article.
- -I would say this lead is overly detailed and doesn't do a great job outlining the rest of the article, offering information that isn't addressed later on.
- Content:
- - The content is generally relevant to the topic aside from a half-assed "Arts and Culture" section that makes a claim about a number of full-time musicians living in town and frequent arts festivals without attempting to explain the situation further.
- - The content is out of date, with recent census and demographic info from 2010 and otherwise few dates to ascertain relevance.
- - As mentioned, the "Arts" Section contains dubious information aside from the mention of the Dinosaur Museum. There is content missing in a number of areas such as culture, economy, government, and education, to name a few. It needs to be fleshed out more.
- - The article does not address historically underrepresented populations or topics.
- Tone and Balance:
- - The article reads as neutral
- - There aren't claims appearing to be heavily-biased, most of it reads as factual reporting
- - There really isn't any representation of anyone besides white people but given that 95% of the town is white people, that doesn't surprise me. Of course, that doesn't mean it has to stay that way, I know a bunch of people from that town who aren't white, more representation would do it good
- - I didn't any encounter any super fringe viewpoints, although the "Climate" seems pretty questionable in its reliability
- - There really weren't any major persuasive elements
- Sources and References:
- - The facts in the article are not all cited, which calls much into question. Most of the sections lack any kind of citation, so it's hard to know what reliable, if any.
- - The sources are mostly just statistical sources from state government or census resources. There is one article that appears more recent about elections but it isn't incorporated into the main article.
- - The main sources are sort of current in that they are regularly updated government databases, but the information from them in the articles is old news
- -There is little diversity, if any, apparent in the source "authors"
- - A Google search revealed more up to date website articles detailing the more recent developments in the towns history, so I'm pretty sure no one has put any effort into updating the page rather rather than information being too scarce
- -The links work, but they're mostly to larger government databases
- Organizational and writing quality:
- - It is well-written
- - There weren't any drastic grammatical mistakes that caught my eye
- -It's organized acceptably, although the climate section should come earlier near geography and the gallery section should be at the end I think
- Images and Media:
- -The images in the gallery are mostly of Pikes Peak, which granted is the most impressive thing about the town, but not what the article itself is about. The other accompanying images are effective, the geographical images delineate the town's location well.
- - The captions are serviceable
- - The images appear to be CC or Public domain
- - The images are mostly just there, I don't know if I'd say visually appealing
- Talk Page discussion:
- -The talk page has one discussion about "Ute Pass" and the specific designation of the canyon which US Highway 24 runs through. The user mentions that calling it something else might "confuse locals", so I assume the person in that thread wasn't a "local". It makes me wonder who would want to contribute to a Wiki about a tiny town where you haven't lived
- -It is rated as "start class" in WikiProjects: Cities, United States/Colorado, and Mountains.
- - There are only two, but they seem organized how we talked in class. The user indented and signed.
- Overall Impression:
- -The overall status is probably accurately classed at start class. There is some basic statistical information and a good amount of information on other topics that sounds legit but isn't cited so it's hard to know
- -The article desperately needs citations, and simply more topics to give a better representation of the town wouldn't hurt
- - I'd say its still underdeveloped
- Sources:
- https://www.uncovercolorado.com/towns/woodland-park/
- https://hashtagcoloradolife.com/woodland-park-colorado/
- https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/teller-county
- http://www.utepasshistoricalsociety.org/ute-pass-history/
| 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. |
Woodland Park, CO
I lived here for 14 years and I think I can increase perception of the town by giving it more (notable) representation on Wikipedia.
- Lead Section:
- -Introductory sentence is informative if a bit wordy and conceptual, detailing Woodland Park as a home rule municipality, which I didn't realize was a thing despite living in Colorado for 14 years.
- - The article outlines the major sections in a "Contents" bubble but doesn't describe them in the lead section.
- - The municipality information in the lead section is not present in the rest of the article. The fact of WP being a bedroom community also is not addressed further in the article.
- -I would say this lead is overly detailed and doesn't do a great job outlining the rest of the article, offering information that isn't addressed later on.
- Content:
- - The content is generally relevant to the topic aside from a half-assed "Arts and Culture" section that makes a claim about a number of full-time musicians living in town and frequent arts festivals without attempting to explain the situation further.
- - The content is out of date, with recent census and demographic info from 2010 and otherwise few dates to ascertain relevance.
- - As mentioned, the "Arts" Section contains dubious information aside from the mention of the Dinosaur Museum. There is content missing in a number of areas such as culture, economy, government, and education, to name a few. It needs to be fleshed out more.
- - The article does not address historically underrepresented populations or topics.
- Tone and Balance:
- - The article reads as neutral
- - There aren't claims appearing to be heavily-biased, most of it reads as factual reporting
- - There really isn't any representation of anyone besides white people but given that 95% of the town is white people, that doesn't surprise me. Of course, that doesn't mean it has to stay that way, I know a bunch of people from that town who aren't white, more representation would do it good
- - I didn't any encounter any super fringe viewpoints, although the "Climate" seems pretty questionable in its reliability
- - There really weren't any major persuasive elements
- Sources and References:
- - The facts in the article are not all cited, which calls much into question. Most of the sections lack any kind of citation, so it's hard to know what reliable, if any.
- - The sources are mostly just statistical sources from state government or census resources. There is one article that appears more recent about elections but it isn't incorporated into the main article.
- - The main sources are sort of current in that they are regularly updated government databases, but the information from them in the articles is old news
- -There is little diversity, if any, apparent in the source "authors"
- - A Google search revealed more up to date website articles detailing the more recent developments in the towns history, so I'm pretty sure no one has put any effort into updating the page rather rather than information being too scarce
- -The links work, but they're mostly to larger government databases
- Organizational and writing quality:
- - It is well-written
- - There weren't any drastic grammatical mistakes that caught my eye
- -It's organized acceptably, although the climate section should come earlier near geography and the gallery section should be at the end I think
- Images and Media:
- -The images in the gallery are mostly of Pikes Peak, which granted is the most impressive thing about the town, but not what the article itself is about. The other accompanying images are effective, the geographical images delineate the town's location well.
- - The captions are serviceable
- - The images appear to be CC or Public domain
- - The images are mostly just there, I don't know if I'd say visually appealing
- Talk Page discussion:
- -The talk page has one discussion about "Ute Pass" and the specific designation of the canyon which US Highway 24 runs through. The user mentions that calling it something else might "confuse locals", so I assume the person in that thread wasn't a "local". It makes me wonder who would want to contribute to a Wiki about a tiny town where you haven't lived
- -It is rated as "start class" in WikiProjects: Cities, United States/Colorado, and Mountains.
- - There are only two, but they seem organized how we talked in class. The user indented and signed.
- Overall Impression:
- -The overall status is probably accurately classed at start class. There is some basic statistical information and a good amount of information on other topics that sounds legit but isn't cited so it's hard to know
- -The article desperately needs citations, and simply more topics to give a better representation of the town wouldn't hurt
- - I'd say its still underdeveloped
- Sources:
- https://www.uncovercolorado.com/towns/woodland-park/
- https://hashtagcoloradolife.com/woodland-park-colorado/
- https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/teller-county
- http://www.utepasshistoricalsociety.org/ute-pass-history/