User:AvonnaPollard22/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?

Alcohol abuse

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because it is based on a topic that peaked me interest. This article matters, because alcohol abuse is the common denominator of a lot of problems that people may face throughout their lifetime. Upon first glance of the article, it seems to be put together nicely. It has some organization, and it covers a multitude of aspects that are embodied in alcohol abuse.

Evaluate the article

Beginning with the lead section, the article starts off with a good basic definition of what alcohol abuse is and what it encompasses. However, it does not mention a majority of the articles major sections. For example, it only provides a range from binge drinking to alcohol dependence. There is no mention of pregnancy, age, or region. The lead does have any information that is not covered in the article, and it is pretty concise and straight to the point of the article.

In terms of content, the article does contain information that is relative to the topic. As I see it, the article covers all of the main aspects of alcohol abuse. I also believe that all of the information that is provided in the article belongs, and it does not really discuss any historically underrepresented populations.

While reading the article, I thought of it to have a neutral tone. The article does not seem too biased, and all of the viewpoints are represented equally. Additionally, I believe that the article does not try to persuade the reader into one direction or the other.

On the topic of organization, I believe that the topics could have been organized better. For example, the topics jump from violence to pregnancy to adolescence. Then further down you have mental illness and puberty, and then further down you have diagnosis and DSM-5. Adolescence and puberty should have been after one another, and mental illness and diagnosis should be together.

There is a lack of images in the article that add to the understanding of the topic. There could be more, however from the ones that I see appear to be in copyright regulations. Additionally, I do not believe that the images are placed in a visually appealing way, they are small and hard to see.

The sources and references seem to be viable to the article, and they also seem to work upon navigating to them.

As I scrolled through the talk page, the conversations seemed to be beneficial, and I noticed some debates going on. The article is rated C-class, and it is apart of 3 wiki projects (medicine, addictions and recovery, and food and drink/bevearages).

Overall, this article is rated high importance in the wiki projects medicine and addictions and recovery. The article provides a strong base of information related to alcohol abuse, and the aspects surrounding it. However, it could be organized better, there could be more images, and the images provided could be bigger and captioned better. I would say that the article is well-developed, but it is not done. There is work that still needs to be done to make this article better.