User:Cfarmer4/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]
I chose this article because I have heard about Autism Speaks and found it listed in the C Class categories.
Evaluate the article[edit]
The lead is concise and gives a brief explanation of what Autism Speaks is. The lead includes a table of contents that outlines what will be talked about and the location within the article. The article’s content is very relevant and seems to be updated often. The tone remains neutral and I could see that revisions are being made to keep biased language about Autism Speaks out of the article. The article included 78 citations and used many hyperlinks for readers to click on to continue their research. My overall impression is that this article does a good job of remaining neutral while illustrating that the organization is criticized and disliked. On the talk page, people have argued about the wording used to describe Autism Speaks. One user wrote that advocacy should not be used because Autism Speaks has been hurtful to people with Autism. Another user wrote that the organization should be listed as a hate group. Despite these comments, the article remains impartial. I think the article could be improved if the history section was edited. This is the only section that did not seem to flow well and was just a list of facts. The article is well developed but could use some edits to the wording and flow.