 | 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. |
Urdu
Urdu#:~:text=Urdu (/ˈʊərduː,and lingua franca of Pakistan.
I have chosen this article because it loosely ties with the topic of my Languages in Peril class. Additionally, Urdu is my second language so I wanted to see what is written about the language in the Wikipedia article. I also wanted to see if there is anything I don't know about the language as well. My preliminary impression of the article was a positive one. There seemed to be content in heavy detail. Urdu scriptures were also incorporated throughout the article. There is mention about both the historical context of the language as well as where it stands currently.
In terms of relevancy, everything written in the article seems relevant to the topic of the Urdu language. The comparison of Urdu and Hindi provided in the article was good for clarifying the differences between the two languages. However, I believe that this comparison was overdone and the main spotlight should have been on the Urdu language, since the article was about Urdu. I would decrease the amount of comparison done between Urdu and Hindi. There is also an inaccuracy in the article. It mentions that Urdu uses personal pronouns like -ko (example mujko) while in Hindi the word would be mujhe. However, as a native speaker, I know that this is not correct. Urdu uses mujhe while Hindi uses mujko. In terms of tone, the article does seem neutral overall. Looking at the resources, it seems like the authors used a wide array of different reliable sources from various different countries. The references seem to be diverse in nature and are easily accessible to the public. Many of the conversations in the Talk page are indicating that the article has some inaccurate/over-exaggerated/under-exaggerated points.
| 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. |
Urdu
Urdu#:~:text=Urdu (/ˈʊərduː,and lingua franca of Pakistan.
I have chosen this article because it loosely ties with the topic of my Languages in Peril class. Additionally, Urdu is my second language so I wanted to see what is written about the language in the Wikipedia article. I also wanted to see if there is anything I don't know about the language as well. My preliminary impression of the article was a positive one. There seemed to be content in heavy detail. Urdu scriptures were also incorporated throughout the article. There is mention about both the historical context of the language as well as where it stands currently.
In terms of relevancy, everything written in the article seems relevant to the topic of the Urdu language. The comparison of Urdu and Hindi provided in the article was good for clarifying the differences between the two languages. However, I believe that this comparison was overdone and the main spotlight should have been on the Urdu language, since the article was about Urdu. I would decrease the amount of comparison done between Urdu and Hindi. There is also an inaccuracy in the article. It mentions that Urdu uses personal pronouns like -ko (example mujko) while in Hindi the word would be mujhe. However, as a native speaker, I know that this is not correct. Urdu uses mujhe while Hindi uses mujko. In terms of tone, the article does seem neutral overall. Looking at the resources, it seems like the authors used a wide array of different reliable sources from various different countries. The references seem to be diverse in nature and are easily accessible to the public. Many of the conversations in the Talk page are indicating that the article has some inaccurate/over-exaggerated/under-exaggerated points.