User:Brownpaylon7/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 have you chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article since I was very interested in archaeology in my childhood years when I watched Jurassic Park and learned archaeology was more than just dinosaurs.
Evaluate the article.
[edit]I believe this article is completely relevant to the chosen topic. Some of the sources are very old, but I'd say that it has been well-kept. The article seems very broad and covers a lot of information, albeit sometimes briefly. Although it covers a lot of topics briefly, I believe each section and subsection to the article has just enough information for the reader to grasp. The links work perfectly and lead to a proficient source and cover the information cited well. While this article is very relevant to archaeology, the talk page is quite the opposite. Nearly nothing is stated that is related to archaeology. One user simply added "MAGA." It was delisted as a good article in 2006, but it is still of high importance in a few WikiProjects.