 | 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 because I have a passion for plants. specifically houseplants. I work at a local nursery and work in a greenhouse everyday with hundreds of different species of plants. I think this article is important because it can help people better understand plants and gardening. my first impression of this article is that it was very informational and continued a wide array of different sources.
(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 introduces the topic and give clear understand of what the article is going to be about. the content in this article is very pertinent to the topic and useful to understanding the article at large. from what I can tell the article is completely neutral and contains no bias or one sided arguments or claims. while this article is sourced from trustworthy and scholarly sites, they do seep to be slightly outdated. the sources come from many different places and appear to be in working order. this article is well written and easy to read but due to the sheer amount of information, one may consider it to be lengthy. the media included plays a large part of the understanding of the topic. after viewing the talk page, this article has an edit that was due to an incorrect image that was displaying the wrong plant for a description. this article is also part of a wiki project. overall, I enjoyed this article and its contents. I think the best part about this article is the wide array of information that it contained. its downfall is that it is rather lengthy and may deter a reader, I think a more concise version would be beneficial. this article is 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 because I have a passion for plants. specifically houseplants. I work at a local nursery and work in a greenhouse everyday with hundreds of different species of plants. I think this article is important because it can help people better understand plants and gardening. my first impression of this article is that it was very informational and continued a wide array of different sources.
(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 introduces the topic and give clear understand of what the article is going to be about. the content in this article is very pertinent to the topic and useful to understanding the article at large. from what I can tell the article is completely neutral and contains no bias or one sided arguments or claims. while this article is sourced from trustworthy and scholarly sites, they do seep to be slightly outdated. the sources come from many different places and appear to be in working order. this article is well written and easy to read but due to the sheer amount of information, one may consider it to be lengthy. the media included plays a large part of the understanding of the topic. after viewing the talk page, this article has an edit that was due to an incorrect image that was displaying the wrong plant for a description. this article is also part of a wiki project. overall, I enjoyed this article and its contents. I think the best part about this article is the wide array of information that it contained. its downfall is that it is rather lengthy and may deter a reader, I think a more concise version would be beneficial. this article is very well developed