 | 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. |
Spring 22: The Two Fridas
Fall 22: Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)
Spring 22: I chose the two fridas because it is a painting that I overall enjoy analyzing, It was one of the first pieces of art that I learned about in my high school class so it holds a lot of significance for me.
Fall 22: I chose to study this article due to the fact that it is dated back to the 6th century which falls into the time frame of the class curriculum. I also felt that it would be good to evaluate because from the looks of it it seems to be lacking many qualities that would make it a better classified article, so from this I wanted to be able to see if could point out things that either make it good or bad and also make suggestions to make it better.
(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.)
Spring 22: Overall I found it to be a good article. The lead section describes what the page overview is about and all the information that is present within it is also present within other sections of the page. Its tone is neutral and balanced and presents the subject in an unbiased way, showing no opinion. Though the page is not necessarily full to the brim with information the content is all relevant to the topic at hand, providing information about the history, context and current location of the painting as well as its social impact. As the subject in question is a painting there is citied information about the exact meaning of the painting though it should be noted that none are exactly confirmed which leads to a form of content gap as most. Most if not all sources used aside from the painting itself are from secondary sources such as people close to the artist. Overall these attributions make a well rounded article, though more could be better developed it is a quick read that provides the necessary information about the subject.
Fall: When reviewing this article there was a startling amount of issues within it, a main piece being the lack of context or history of the piece being looked into. Starting at the leas section, this was not one of the worst as it does introduce the piece and date it in time and its importance. Though it does not lead into who
| 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. |
Spring 22: The Two Fridas
Fall 22: Christ Pantocrator (Sinai)
Spring 22: I chose the two fridas because it is a painting that I overall enjoy analyzing, It was one of the first pieces of art that I learned about in my high school class so it holds a lot of significance for me.
Fall 22: I chose to study this article due to the fact that it is dated back to the 6th century which falls into the time frame of the class curriculum. I also felt that it would be good to evaluate because from the looks of it it seems to be lacking many qualities that would make it a better classified article, so from this I wanted to be able to see if could point out things that either make it good or bad and also make suggestions to make it better.
(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.)
Spring 22: Overall I found it to be a good article. The lead section describes what the page overview is about and all the information that is present within it is also present within other sections of the page. Its tone is neutral and balanced and presents the subject in an unbiased way, showing no opinion. Though the page is not necessarily full to the brim with information the content is all relevant to the topic at hand, providing information about the history, context and current location of the painting as well as its social impact. As the subject in question is a painting there is citied information about the exact meaning of the painting though it should be noted that none are exactly confirmed which leads to a form of content gap as most. Most if not all sources used aside from the painting itself are from secondary sources such as people close to the artist. Overall these attributions make a well rounded article, though more could be better developed it is a quick read that provides the necessary information about the subject.
Fall: When reviewing this article there was a startling amount of issues within it, a main piece being the lack of context or history of the piece being looked into. Starting at the leas section, this was not one of the worst as it does introduce the piece and date it in time and its importance. Though it does not lead into who