![]() | 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 focuses on an area we have not yet covered in class, so I wanted to learn a little more about it. I also chose it because it does not have a large talk section, but a long edit history.
The lead section is concise and to the point. It has the major points associated with Earnest Nagel.
The content is a little short and only has one subsection included in it. I noticed on the second paragraph of the Life and career section that it is lacking any citations. It was suggested that citations be made at least once per paragraph in the training, so that could be a worthy edit. The last few lines of the article are also missing some key citations.
The talk page has a couple questions on it but not a lot of overall activity. The discussions on the talk page are disputes about different facts mentioned in the article.
The article is fairly up to date, with the last revision being in January of 2023.
![]() | 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 focuses on an area we have not yet covered in class, so I wanted to learn a little more about it. I also chose it because it does not have a large talk section, but a long edit history.
The lead section is concise and to the point. It has the major points associated with Earnest Nagel.
The content is a little short and only has one subsection included in it. I noticed on the second paragraph of the Life and career section that it is lacking any citations. It was suggested that citations be made at least once per paragraph in the training, so that could be a worthy edit. The last few lines of the article are also missing some key citations.
The talk page has a couple questions on it but not a lot of overall activity. The discussions on the talk page are disputes about different facts mentioned in the article.
The article is fairly up to date, with the last revision being in January of 2023.