User:Corinnestevens/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 after I found the topic "Women in Archaeology" listed under the c-class list provided in the exercise. I then clicked the first name at the top of the list and found Nabia Abbott.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
Lead Section: The lead section provides a simple overview of Nabia Abbott's area of knowledge, where she was a professor, and her most famous piece of writing. It provides a guide to the sections of the article and does not contain anything irrelevant or overly detailed
Content: This article contains relevant information about Abbott, but lacks detail, mentioning many interesting things about her very briefly and not expanding on the information provided. It is recognized that she is a pioneer for women in archaeology but does not go into detail about any hardships she faced while paving the way in her field.
Tone and Balance: This article does a good job at maintaining a neutral tone. Because this article is pretty short and undetailed, there isn't much room for personal opinions or bias to come through. Very bare bones
Sources and References: Information is well cited in the reference section, though the most recent source is from 2013. Something more recent has most likely been published regarding Abbott since this date so more up to date sources would improve this article.
Organization and writing quality: This article is well organized, but the writing quality could be improved, The sentences are short and choppy so reading isn't particularly smooth. Some of the sentence structure is a bit backward and hard to understand.
Images and Media: There is one picture of Abbott with a relevant caption. It is completely cited.
Talk page discussion: There is no discussion on the talk page.
Overall impressions: This article is technically well done, everything is well cited, organized, and all elements (besides an active talk page) that make a successful Wikipedia article, but there is very little information or detail presented.