User:Benmardis1/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]

2007 Gasoline Rationing Plan in Iran - Wikipedia

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

I chose this article because I wanted to learn a bit more about the politics surrounding gasoline. Understanding the gas rationing plan of Iran can help one also understand some of the political pressures the country has. It's interesting to learn how something like a gas rationing plan ties into the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the U.S.

My initial opinions of the article are that it is well written with a lot statistics, references, and quotes from relevant individuals.

Evaluate the article[edit]

The lead section does give an easy to understand introduction and I can get the gist of the article from the first paragraph. The lead doesn't clearly overview the different sections of the article, however.

The content of the article is mostly relevant. The only sections that I question are the sections about fuel smuggling and the economic damage caused by it. It's clear that fuel smuggling is a problem in Iran but these sections don't make it clear how this relates to the Gas Rationing Plan.

It seems that the article takes a neutral position about the Gas Rationing Plan. The content provided doesn't seem to reflect the article authors opinions about the subject.

The sources are mostly from news reports that were made within the relevant years that this event occurred which in this context seems to be appropriate. There was only one dead link in the sources. I checked several others and they were good links.

Overall the writing quality and organization was good. There was one statement at the end of the article that didn't seem like it had correct sentence structure. "By July 2010, Iran had managed to save 11 billion dollars since the rationing began, thanks to the gasoline rationing plan, which has spared the need for excessive imports of the commodity." I had to read it several times and I understand the statement but it just seems like the sentence structure is odd.

After reviewing the Talk page it seems that there is a bit of political discussion happening and some critiques of the accuracy of some statements made that lacked citations. There were also discrepancies mentioned about some of the numbers that were provided, mostly due to different numbers given by different news sources.

Overall as someone who knew nothing about the Gas Rationing Plan in Iran, I feel like this article gives the reader a good basic understanding of what happened. To make this article better I would suggest at least mentioning that other news sources provided different statistics for some of the data points. I would also take out the sections on fuel smuggling and the economic problems associated with it. Those sections seem like they should be their own article. Now that I'm looking back through the article again I'm seeing a few more minor grammatical corrections that should be made. "In mid-November 2008, the prices super gasoline in the neighboring Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Turkey and the UAE were 105, 108, 74, 84, 187 and 45 cents per liter. Whereas, in Iran motorists are allowed 100 liters (26.4 US gallons) of gasoline each month at the subsidized price of about 10 cents per liter (37.9 cents per US gallons) and an unlimited amount at 40 cents per liter ($1.52 per US gallons)." These two sentences have some issues that should be addressed. It should say "the prices of super gasoline.... and the second sentence shouldn't start with Whereas. Instead It should say something like In contrast,.