User:Alexandra.rylander/Evaluate an Article
 | 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?[edit]
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]
Dr. Turner originally suggested that I take a look at this article! I'm very interested with discourse and the ways we think-of and speak-on different areas of discussion with one another. I think this topic is important as it represents an aspect of language that helps us understand arguments and ideas. Metadiscourse allows us to communicate how we come about our own views based on prior knowledge. I believe understanding metadiscourse better could help us understand the context behind each other's perceptions, as well.
Evaluate the article[edit]
The lead section is concise but not entirely clear. I feel like if someone were to stumble upon this page in hopes to learn what metadiscourse is all about, they wouldn't be able to grasp the whole idea just from this section as it stands right now. Further, the lead section is the only area of this page that has any content on it thus far, so an individual seeking information about this topic would most likely have to navigate to a different site all together in order to find what they need. The lead includes some helpful examples of words and phrases that signal the use of metadiscourse, but I think this could use a bit more elaboration as people being introduced to this topic for the first time will need very thorough information to grasp the concept well. As I previously mentioned, the lead is the only section provided on this page at the moment. With that being said, this topic lacks sources (none are included) and a strong, consistent tone. This page requires an addition of ample information with solid references, more in-depth clarifications, and an informative yet digestible tone.