User:Madmarovakmal/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Islam

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose Islam as my topic for this tutorial because it is one of the largest religions and we should know what it is about. My preliminary impression of it is that there are photos, audio samples, and there is a precise introduction or an abstract that helps to summarize the whole paper.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section:

The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. Furthermore, it includes summaries for major sections. The lead does not include anything that is not in the article. The lead is concise as the topic "Islam" is a huge one.

Content:

The article's content is definitely related to the topic. The content is up-to-date. I do not think there are any contents missing or there are any content that do not belong in the article because of the size of the topic. The article does talk about the underrepresented groups within Islam.

Tone and Balance:

The article has a neutral and professional tone. No, there are no bias claims made in the article. I believe all the sections are underrepresented a little because of how grand the topic is. The minority or fringe viewpoints are described from the neutral point of view with accuracy. The article does not try to persuade the audience to one or other view, but opens neutral and stays and ends in neutral language, and tone.

Sources and References:

The article has many reliable secondary source and primary which is the Quran. The sources are thorough and numerous, also they reflect the availability literature on the topic. The sources are current. The sources are diverse in geography, race and years they were published in. The article includes marginalized Shia authors from the past. There are some peer-reviewed works that are published on Islam. The links work.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The article is very well written. It is concise, easy to read, and clear. There are no grammatical or spelling errors in the article. The article is broken down into different sections clearly.

Images and Media:

The article includes many images that assist the audience with understanding of the topic. The images are adequately captioned with moderation. I believe some of the images do not adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are on the right side, next to their respective sections, and look appealing.

Talk Page Discussion:

There are two portals which are Islamic and Religion portals, and there are conversations happening in them. The rating of the article can not be seen, but it is part of WikiProjects. The article includes many sources from different perspectives about Islam, also includes criticism of it.

Overall Impressions:

The article's overall status is up-to-date. The article's strength is diversification of sources, and many clear and concise sections. The article can improve in cutting down on sources because too many sources can damage the article as it might become confusing. I would say that the article is well-developed.