 | 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 to evaluate because it has to do with something with another topic I aim to improve/add in Wikipedia and evaluating it would help me grasp the topic a little more. Seeing the article, I personally expected it to be small however was surprised to see a detail article with a lot of information.
To start evaluation of the article it fulfills the first part of it. Giving a very basic introduction in the first sentence, what you need to know in the first paragraph, and the reminder gave a summary of the whole article although it sometimes goes a bit too detailed. Thus, it succeeds in all points with a few improvements needed.
The content of the article continues to show high quality. Almost all content is related to the subject (although some details are too much or unrelated to the topic). Regarding the dating all of it seems up to date. Coming to content included or not included this depends on one’s opinion I believe it should briefly discuss a few figures that met with him however it is a possibility that the editors will disagree with me. Overall, however it’s a strong article including a lot of information.
When the article comes to tone it’s still has flying stars albeit lower than the previous two point. It mostly sticks to a neutral point of view although its does say some points that places the article towards some sort of opinion. However, it seems to follow a neutral and it’s not trying to convince the reader of a certain point of view.
Sources are strong though it seems like it lacks from many primary sources. Secondary sources on the other hand are numerous with high quality sources all around using mostly academic books. Although, there are a few claims that are given “clarification needed,” or “citation needed,” so the article still needs to work on sources a bit more.
Images are well used to explain who it is and where a place is. All of this gives the readers a larger idea of the topic like where he died, what is his coat of arms, where some of his battles were fought, and some pictures of him. There are however images that are simply out of place or not provided any context. These either needed to be given better clarified or removed.
The Talking feature revels a whole new world of this article. With it being listed as a “good article,” in early 2011. There are several debates including the way to spell a name, about the subject’s relationship with Catherine the Great, and other ideas. Unlike class the debate doesn’t involve a topic or how something happen but how to mention it or spell it. Some are basic such as how to spell the name (in other Wikipedia pages before I evaluated this page, I saw debates about if they should include x or not).
Overall, the article is a good one. It gives all the information one needs. It also tries its best to give a natural view of the subject. It needs however to remove some words/sentence to improve it. It needs to be developed a bit more on a few issues however its very well developed.
| 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 to evaluate because it has to do with something with another topic I aim to improve/add in Wikipedia and evaluating it would help me grasp the topic a little more. Seeing the article, I personally expected it to be small however was surprised to see a detail article with a lot of information.
To start evaluation of the article it fulfills the first part of it. Giving a very basic introduction in the first sentence, what you need to know in the first paragraph, and the reminder gave a summary of the whole article although it sometimes goes a bit too detailed. Thus, it succeeds in all points with a few improvements needed.
The content of the article continues to show high quality. Almost all content is related to the subject (although some details are too much or unrelated to the topic). Regarding the dating all of it seems up to date. Coming to content included or not included this depends on one’s opinion I believe it should briefly discuss a few figures that met with him however it is a possibility that the editors will disagree with me. Overall, however it’s a strong article including a lot of information.
When the article comes to tone it’s still has flying stars albeit lower than the previous two point. It mostly sticks to a neutral point of view although its does say some points that places the article towards some sort of opinion. However, it seems to follow a neutral and it’s not trying to convince the reader of a certain point of view.
Sources are strong though it seems like it lacks from many primary sources. Secondary sources on the other hand are numerous with high quality sources all around using mostly academic books. Although, there are a few claims that are given “clarification needed,” or “citation needed,” so the article still needs to work on sources a bit more.
Images are well used to explain who it is and where a place is. All of this gives the readers a larger idea of the topic like where he died, what is his coat of arms, where some of his battles were fought, and some pictures of him. There are however images that are simply out of place or not provided any context. These either needed to be given better clarified or removed.
The Talking feature revels a whole new world of this article. With it being listed as a “good article,” in early 2011. There are several debates including the way to spell a name, about the subject’s relationship with Catherine the Great, and other ideas. Unlike class the debate doesn’t involve a topic or how something happen but how to mention it or spell it. Some are basic such as how to spell the name (in other Wikipedia pages before I evaluated this page, I saw debates about if they should include x or not).
Overall, the article is a good one. It gives all the information one needs. It also tries its best to give a natural view of the subject. It needs however to remove some words/sentence to improve it. It needs to be developed a bit more on a few issues however its very well developed.