 | 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?
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The Express-News is the daily newspaper for my city, and it's an organization I work with on a near-daily basis in my day job.
Evaluate the article
The lead section clearly and concisely describes the Express-News, but includes circulation information that is cited, but not referenced anywhere else in the article.
Overall, the History section covers the early history well, but is lacking in more recent information. The Current Business section lists updated senior staff, but the information is not cited. Additionally, there is a [citation needed] tag after a list of awards and accolades the paper received. The overall tone is neutral, and the article does not try to persuade the reader.
There are very few Sources and References, and one of the 5 links is broken. If the pieces of the article that are currently missing citations are properly cited, the references and sources section should be more comprehensive.
The article is well organized, concise, and easy to read. Only one image is included, a copy of the newspaper's front page from 2012.
The talk page is empty - there are no discussions. The article is a part of several WikiProjects: United States, Texas, San Antonio, and Journalism.
Overall, it's a good start to a complete article, but it does need "finished" with updated current information and additional sources. The history section is definitely the article's strongest point.
| 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?
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The Express-News is the daily newspaper for my city, and it's an organization I work with on a near-daily basis in my day job.
Evaluate the article
The lead section clearly and concisely describes the Express-News, but includes circulation information that is cited, but not referenced anywhere else in the article.
Overall, the History section covers the early history well, but is lacking in more recent information. The Current Business section lists updated senior staff, but the information is not cited. Additionally, there is a [citation needed] tag after a list of awards and accolades the paper received. The overall tone is neutral, and the article does not try to persuade the reader.
There are very few Sources and References, and one of the 5 links is broken. If the pieces of the article that are currently missing citations are properly cited, the references and sources section should be more comprehensive.
The article is well organized, concise, and easy to read. Only one image is included, a copy of the newspaper's front page from 2012.
The talk page is empty - there are no discussions. The article is a part of several WikiProjects: United States, Texas, San Antonio, and Journalism.
Overall, it's a good start to a complete article, but it does need "finished" with updated current information and additional sources. The history section is definitely the article's strongest point.