 | 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. |
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because I play this instrument. The piano is a common instrument played worldwide with a long history. I learned many facts that I did not know about it before.
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
The lead section is strong and concise. The article was last updated six days ago and has sources from many years, although many of them are from before the years 2010. The links I clicked on work and many of them are from archives. All of the content is reasonable and necessary. There are no biased tones in this article, so I believe that the article has a neutral stance. The writing is easy to read and understand and the sections are nicely organized. Images in the article enhance the knowledge written with it and are captioned well. The article is rated at C-class and is of high importance. It of interest to at least three WikiProjects. I would say that the article is well-developed. The format of the images could be better, but their current format is decent. Many conversations and corrections are being discussed in the Talk Page.
| 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. |
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because I play this instrument. The piano is a common instrument played worldwide with a long history. I learned many facts that I did not know about it before.
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
The lead section is strong and concise. The article was last updated six days ago and has sources from many years, although many of them are from before the years 2010. The links I clicked on work and many of them are from archives. All of the content is reasonable and necessary. There are no biased tones in this article, so I believe that the article has a neutral stance. The writing is easy to read and understand and the sections are nicely organized. Images in the article enhance the knowledge written with it and are captioned well. The article is rated at C-class and is of high importance. It of interest to at least three WikiProjects. I would say that the article is well-developed. The format of the images could be better, but their current format is decent. Many conversations and corrections are being discussed in the Talk Page.