 | 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?
Because it is a small article with not much work done, I figured it would be easy to add sources and information.
Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead section does give a clear explanation of the topic and gives a brief overview of its history. The last sentence is confusing when it states "paraprofessionals have become a professional in their own right". It feels like more of an explanation is needed to clarify the author's meaning behind it. The lead section is also missing citations and sources.
Content: The content is relevant to the topic but only gives a few examples. The content is up to date but could use some updates. The content displayed belongs on the page but is missing sources. I do not believe the article deals with equity gaps or relates to underrepresented populations.
Tone and Balance - The article is written in a neutral manner and does not have any biased claims. There are neither underrepresented or overrepresented viewpoints. The article also does not include minority or fringe viewpoints. Lastly, the article does not try to persuade the reader in any position.
Sources and References - Not all facts in the article are supported by reliable sources and some are not supported at all. The sources are not very thorough as two of them are for the basic definition of paraprofessional. Only one source displays a date from 2022, indicating the sources are not up to date. The sources are not diverse and do not include historically marginalized individuals. There are better sources available for this topic and the links are functional.
Organization and Writing Quality - The article is easy to read and somewhat clear in its definition. The article does not contain any grammatical or writing errors. The article is well-broken up into sections reflecting major points.
Images and Media - The article does not include any images.
Talk Page Discussion - The reference supporting the paralegal example explains the issue clearly but a more objective source would be beneficial. There is a rude comment about one of the statements in the article. The article is rated as a stub and is not part of any wiki projects to my knowledge. The way wikipedia discusses the topic does not differ from the way we've talked about it in class.
Overall Impressions - The articles overall status is of low importance and a stub. There are not many strengths but there are good examples. The article could be improved by adding better sources and references. Overall the article undeveloped in regards to its sourcing and references.
| 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?
Because it is a small article with not much work done, I figured it would be easy to add sources and information.
Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead section does give a clear explanation of the topic and gives a brief overview of its history. The last sentence is confusing when it states "paraprofessionals have become a professional in their own right". It feels like more of an explanation is needed to clarify the author's meaning behind it. The lead section is also missing citations and sources.
Content: The content is relevant to the topic but only gives a few examples. The content is up to date but could use some updates. The content displayed belongs on the page but is missing sources. I do not believe the article deals with equity gaps or relates to underrepresented populations.
Tone and Balance - The article is written in a neutral manner and does not have any biased claims. There are neither underrepresented or overrepresented viewpoints. The article also does not include minority or fringe viewpoints. Lastly, the article does not try to persuade the reader in any position.
Sources and References - Not all facts in the article are supported by reliable sources and some are not supported at all. The sources are not very thorough as two of them are for the basic definition of paraprofessional. Only one source displays a date from 2022, indicating the sources are not up to date. The sources are not diverse and do not include historically marginalized individuals. There are better sources available for this topic and the links are functional.
Organization and Writing Quality - The article is easy to read and somewhat clear in its definition. The article does not contain any grammatical or writing errors. The article is well-broken up into sections reflecting major points.
Images and Media - The article does not include any images.
Talk Page Discussion - The reference supporting the paralegal example explains the issue clearly but a more objective source would be beneficial. There is a rude comment about one of the statements in the article. The article is rated as a stub and is not part of any wiki projects to my knowledge. The way wikipedia discusses the topic does not differ from the way we've talked about it in class.
Overall Impressions - The articles overall status is of low importance and a stub. There are not many strengths but there are good examples. The article could be improved by adding better sources and references. Overall the article undeveloped in regards to its sourcing and references.