User:Emilyyxx/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?

Collaboration

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I am researching on communication skills within teamwork, and collaboration working is one of the methodology within a team to work together with shared information. Also, Wikipedia is one special example for collaboration as well.

Evaluate the article

Evaluation of the article

Lead section

The lead section of the article starts with a definition of collaboration which clearly states what the term means and how the term is being used. The lead gives an insight of the major properties of collaboration, but it does not provide a brief description of the major sections. All the information provided in the lead are related to the information in other sections of the article. The lead is certainly concise enough with no overly detailed information.

Content

The content of the article uses different examples where collaborations are used to illustrate the concepts further. Many of the content are up-to-date, while some of the contents are actually old examples in the past. All contents are related, but the content only includes the examples of collaboration in different areas or certain specific situations.

Tone and Balance

While the contents basically involve in the examples of how collaborations are present in different disciplines and situations, the tone of the article is neutral. However, after looking through the article, I found that most of the content is stating the positive side of collaboration and few disadvantages were discussed.

Sources and References

While many of the contents are backed up by sufficient sources, some of the sections do not provided with reliable sources or provided not enough sources to support the contents. For example, the section " Technical Communication", no sources have been cited. Although some of the contents might be agreed by the majorities, no references in the section can make the contents unreliable. Most of the references ranged from the year 2006 to 2020, so it is relatively current, given many of them are examples in the history. Most of the links are active, while a few of them show up an error page.

Organization and writing quality

The article, in each section, is concise and clear about the the section content. However, the overall structure is not so clear. The Level 1 Heading sections are "examples" and "occupational examples" which is not that clear and organized.

Images and Media

A few images are used to help the readers to understand the topic, but I believe more charts and images can be used to better show the facts about the contents. Images used adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are not really laid out in a visually appealing way since there are little direct relationship of the images to the article topic.

Talk page discussion

In the talk page, editors discuss about the underlying problem of some problems such as "untitled" contents, misleading wording, errors of the sources link, and some biased or unreliable information. Also, there are suggestions made by editors who would like to add on more type of information or who wants to extend the contents. Some different opinions and suggestions are given.

Overall impressions

The first impression to the article is not structured as expected. The content of the article is clear and concise but the some of the content lacks reliable sources. The references need to be rechecked and improved. It is sightly underdeveloped, more sources need to be add to support the information stated. The contents are structured in a way that is hard for the readers to find the information they need.