User:Coralafollette/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?

Bible for children

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to evaluate this article because I am very interested in children's literature as well as the Bible as a text. I think this article matters because lots of families are interested in introducing religion to their children, but these kids are not always able to digest texts like this in their original form. There are many different mediums in which kids now can learn about the Bible, and lots of stories have been written and published by multiple companies. My preliminary impression of this article was that it was lackluster, short, and outdated.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of this article is a quick, one-sentence liner about the definition of children's Bibles. From the way it looks, this sentence does not grant any new information that a person couldn't already gather themselves from the title Bible for children. The lead sentence is clear and to the point, but maybe almost too concise. The content of the article that is currently included is relevant but very outdated. It references a couple children's Bible publications, but the most recent one is from 1991. There is a part describing when the first children's Bible was published, but none of the thought behind it, the context of its creation, or what importance of it looks like today. The article seems to have a neutral tone, but, then again, it is just a bit longer than a paragraph giving little room for bias. There are five listed sources at the bottom, but only one of them actually links to an external source, which does work but does not list a given author of the work. The most recent source is from 1998. The article is clear of any grammatical errors and is written concisely, but it's hard to tell if it is broken up in an organizational manner because it is so short. There is only one image in the article, an illustration from a children's book from 1899, and I would argue it does not enhance the readers' understanding of the topic. The talk page for this article has no listed conversations, but it is apart of the WikiProjects Bible and is a low-importance stub for both Bible and children's literature. The article's strengths are its clarity, but it is extremely underdeveloped. I would argue it is currently missing recent publications and more of the context of why children's Bibles were published in the first place and why they still hold significance today. I believe the article could be improved by adding more up-to date examples of children's Bibles, why parents are interested in these publications, more numbers on how many copies are sold each year, and more images in general.