 | 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. |
I chose this article because we recently talked about biomes in class and it reminded me of John Green's book The Anthropocene Reviewed. This topic matters because it involves the impact of humans on ecosystems. My first impression was this is an interesting article that seems to be well-written.
Lead Section Eval:
The lead section only includes a definition of anthropogenic biomes. It does not give an overview about what is in the article. The section is concise, but I think it could use a bit more information to tell readers what the article is about.
Content Eval:
The article's content is relevant and up-to-date. There was information from articles written in 2021. I do not think there was any content missing or out of place.
Tone and Balance Eval:
This was a neutral article. There were not any claims that were toward a particular bias. The article talked heavily about human impact on the environment, but that is the core of the topic so it cannot go unmentioned. There is also no persuasion attempts in the article.
Sources/Reference Eval:
The sources are mostly from journals. There does not appear to be a diverse group of authors in the references that were used. In the article, all facts were cited. The links in the reference section do work and the sources are mostly current. The oldest source is from 2008. Organization and Writing Quality Eval:
The article is easy to read and well-written. It is broken down nicely into sections that make sense. I did not notice any grammar or spelling errors.
Images and Media Eval:
There is only one image in this article. The caption is not very detailed. I think it would be helpful to include more images in this article.
Talk Page Eval:
There was only one comment from 2008 about this article being redundant since other pages talk about the topics covered in this page.
Overall Impressions:
I think the article did a good job of covering the topic in detail. I think some more images would be helpful, especially when talking about the different regions and the types of human impact on them. For example, graphs showing rainforest loss over time would be helpful. Overall, I would say this is a pretty well-developed article.
| 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. |
I chose this article because we recently talked about biomes in class and it reminded me of John Green's book The Anthropocene Reviewed. This topic matters because it involves the impact of humans on ecosystems. My first impression was this is an interesting article that seems to be well-written.
Lead Section Eval:
The lead section only includes a definition of anthropogenic biomes. It does not give an overview about what is in the article. The section is concise, but I think it could use a bit more information to tell readers what the article is about.
Content Eval:
The article's content is relevant and up-to-date. There was information from articles written in 2021. I do not think there was any content missing or out of place.
Tone and Balance Eval:
This was a neutral article. There were not any claims that were toward a particular bias. The article talked heavily about human impact on the environment, but that is the core of the topic so it cannot go unmentioned. There is also no persuasion attempts in the article.
Sources/Reference Eval:
The sources are mostly from journals. There does not appear to be a diverse group of authors in the references that were used. In the article, all facts were cited. The links in the reference section do work and the sources are mostly current. The oldest source is from 2008. Organization and Writing Quality Eval:
The article is easy to read and well-written. It is broken down nicely into sections that make sense. I did not notice any grammar or spelling errors.
Images and Media Eval:
There is only one image in this article. The caption is not very detailed. I think it would be helpful to include more images in this article.
Talk Page Eval:
There was only one comment from 2008 about this article being redundant since other pages talk about the topics covered in this page.
Overall Impressions:
I think the article did a good job of covering the topic in detail. I think some more images would be helpful, especially when talking about the different regions and the types of human impact on them. For example, graphs showing rainforest loss over time would be helpful. Overall, I would say this is a pretty well-developed article.