User:Jmvelasquez/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?[edit]

Gold

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I decided to evaluate the gold article because it is a well known topic. It is an important topic because it has many physical and chemical properties. It is also used in many different industries and countries. Since this article was not deemd as a 'good article' I thought this would be a good place to start as there is room for improvement.

Evaluate the article[edit]

The article for gold includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. Immediately, it lets the audience know that gold is a chemical element in the periodic table, symbolized by the letters 'Au' and the explanation of why these letters were chosen. The lead includes a brief decripstion of the article's major sections such as the characteristcs of gold (colour, isotopes, etc.), as well as its synthesis and its chemical properties. Furthermore, it mentions its usage and arerity, as well as its use in the industry across different countries. Most of the lead is concise and sgraight to the point. However, there is a brief paragraph that mentions which countries were the largest gold producers in the world, and they give very specific numbers and percentages. I don't believe these need to be mentioned in the lead section as it should provide a brief overview of the most important information. These numbers (and other data) can be saved for a specific paragraph in the content later on.

Overall, the article's content is relevant to the topic. There are a few bits in which the information could have been left out. For example, under the 'Toxicity' section, there is mentionof a fungus that was found growing from gold mining solution. I don't necessarily think this has to be here, but could remain in the article for that fungus, and then redirect to the gold article. The same can be said for the blurb about it being the 'allergen of the year in 2001; it's also outdated. Additionally, there is section on 'miscellaneous'. I feel as though this information could have been implemented in different sections rather than being thrown in at the end. Or, if the material didn't fit into any of the subtopics it shouldn't have been included. Also, information about gold being 'manufactured do thin that it can be semi-transparent' was already mentioned in the 'Characteristics' section. From what was evaluated, there does not seem to be any missing information. The article goes into proper detail about the physical, chemical, and socio-politcal aspects of gold. As for the Wikipedia equity gaps, the article does touch on how gold is used/dipicted in different religions and cultures.

This article was written from a neutral point of view and shows no claims that appear to be heavily based to a particular party. The artciel meantions many different countries (i.,e their association with gold) and viewpoints without being too detailed or overrepresented. To add onto this, there are no viewpoints that were underrepresented. Most facts in the article are backed up by a realiable secondary source of information. Source information draws from thorough scientific literature and peer-reviewed articles. These scientific articles reflect the available literature on the topic. Some sources are outdated, with some being from the 1800s. Among checking the scientific articles, the DOIs work and they have several citations. There are, however, some citations come from not-so-reliable sources such as Yahoo news, New York Times, Coin Update, and Investopedia. The article is wrriten clearly and professionably, and organized in sections and subsections where needed. There are no grammatic or spelling errors. The article's information is supplemented with images, diagrams, and tables. Each figure and table is captioned, however not all of them are cited. Figures and tables were laid out in a visually appealing way to the best of the article's ability; and were formatted into their appropriate sections.

In the talk page, there are some sections to be edited and published. There are three sections in the works: environmental impacts, gold marker mini rods in cancer radiation therapy, and gold reactivity. Additionally, we can see edit requests, in which formatting requests and the adidtion of information is discussed here. There is also discussion about some information being incorrect and looking for reliable sources. Overall, the article is informative and concise; not only in the scientific field the anthropological field too. Areas of improvement can be gathering citations come from reliable sources, as this can ensure the information is correct. If possible, scientific literature should be updated. Additionally, anyone who is to edit the article in the future should ensure that information is relevant to the topic and not deviate from the original topic.