User:Emendelman/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]Having learned about socialization in prior classes related to my major, I am curious to see where the similarities lie (as I am currently, pre-evaluation, assuming that there are many). At first glance, this article seems to be quite dense and may lack sources and clarification.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
Lead section
[edit]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? Yes
- Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
- Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No!
- Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Somewhat overly detailed
Content
[edit]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? Subsections were a little off-topic or overly detailed, but generally yes
- Is the content up-to-date?Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some subsections may have been a little overbearing
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes! Some history of the queer community as well as considering additional global perspectives
Tone and Balance
[edit]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? Generally, although some opinions are not particularly solidified or established in the scientific community ('some literature argues', etc.)
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I don't believe so
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not particularly, but I would appreciate if what other literature has to say was included with some topics.
- Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? While not highlighted or declared per se, a multitude are included under the community and region sections.
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I wouldn't say so, no.
Sources and References
[edit]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? Well,yes!
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
- Are the sources current? Yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and Yes
- 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.) Most are from academic journals
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yup
Organization and writing quality
[edit]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? A little dense, I think some sentences could be a lot shorter
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Several.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the most part yes
Images and Media
[edit]- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
- Are images well-captioned? n/a
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a
Talk page discussion
[edit]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? Redirections and verbiage edits
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? S-class and WikiProject Politics
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't really talked about this all that much yet
Overall impressions
[edit]- What is the article's overall status?It definitely needs work
- What are the article's strengths? Very informative and it is generally pretty well written!
- How can the article be improved? Grammatical errors, providing more well-rounded sources, and maybe conciseness.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Its on it's way to being well developed..?