 | 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 thought this was an interesting phenomenon that I don't know a great amount about. It is an important historical event that was detrimental to the populations involved in the event. It is a very short article but provides other sources to do further research.
(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 to the point and describes what the article is about. It is concise and does not talk about irrelevant information. There definitely could be a lot more content, possibly about why this happened, what the results were of the locust swarm, and what life was like during this swarm. This article is written from a neutral point because it doesn't really have any "right or wrong" sides or viewpoints. The article includes a quote from a historical record but it does not specify who said the quote. The article discusses the individual who calculate the area of the swarm. The sources include books which you cannot easily access and a podcast which is also not easily accessible to information without having to listen to the whole thing. There are definitely more peer reviewed articles or other sources of information that could benefit this article. The article is very short so it does not require much organization. It is well organized and has no grammatical errors that I can see. There is only one image which is a cartoon from 1875, depicting the locust swarm. Another image including the terrain or area this took place could be helpful in visualizing the event. A picture of the locust would also be beneficial. There is one conversation about improper accuracy of unit conversion about the area the swarm covered. Someone else told where the information was from but the source is not available. The article is rated "Stub-class" on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Overall, the article is very short and could use more information if available. The articles strengths include the quote coming from a historical document describing the event in detail from someone living through the swarm. The article can be improved by checking the accuracy of the unit conversion and adding more overall history about life during the swarm, results of the event, and why it happened if that information is available. I would say the article is underdeveloped.
| 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 thought this was an interesting phenomenon that I don't know a great amount about. It is an important historical event that was detrimental to the populations involved in the event. It is a very short article but provides other sources to do further research.
(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 to the point and describes what the article is about. It is concise and does not talk about irrelevant information. There definitely could be a lot more content, possibly about why this happened, what the results were of the locust swarm, and what life was like during this swarm. This article is written from a neutral point because it doesn't really have any "right or wrong" sides or viewpoints. The article includes a quote from a historical record but it does not specify who said the quote. The article discusses the individual who calculate the area of the swarm. The sources include books which you cannot easily access and a podcast which is also not easily accessible to information without having to listen to the whole thing. There are definitely more peer reviewed articles or other sources of information that could benefit this article. The article is very short so it does not require much organization. It is well organized and has no grammatical errors that I can see. There is only one image which is a cartoon from 1875, depicting the locust swarm. Another image including the terrain or area this took place could be helpful in visualizing the event. A picture of the locust would also be beneficial. There is one conversation about improper accuracy of unit conversion about the area the swarm covered. Someone else told where the information was from but the source is not available. The article is rated "Stub-class" on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Overall, the article is very short and could use more information if available. The articles strengths include the quote coming from a historical document describing the event in detail from someone living through the swarm. The article can be improved by checking the accuracy of the unit conversion and adding more overall history about life during the swarm, results of the event, and why it happened if that information is available. I would say the article is underdeveloped.