User:Fmdancer23/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?

(Katia and Maurice Krafft.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose the 'Katia and Maurice Krafft' article to evaluate because it is an example of my class assignment topic, 'Women in Geology'. This article dives into Katia's (and Maurice's) life and shows the readers the stepping stones in Katia's career of becoming a volcanologist. It discusses the achievements that she and Maurice shared together (and separately) and the legacy they left behind. This article is an important example of women in science and shows younger female readers that women can and should follow their careers and goals post-marriage. I have a very satisfied impression of this article because it is organized and easy to follow through and navigate certain facts and information.

Evaluate the article

(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.)

The lead section of the article is eye-catching and alluring. It makes readers want to click into the article and learn more about the tragic deaths of Katia and Maurice. It provides enough information in the lead section to tell the readers what the article is about, gives multiple other excellent sources which the story can be viewed from, and explains which categories of their lives are depicted throughout the article. The personal, background information on Katia and Maurice, I think lacks depth and linear correlation to the outline of the article, meaning specific information about Maurice is provided to strengthen the background structure of his career which is not even touched on for Katia, for example, Maurice's childhood interest in volcanoes. The organizational aspect of the article is clear and precise, it is very easy for readers to follow along or quickly skim and scan for specific information. The tone and balance of the article are up to Wikipedia standards and expectations. The article is in a neutral, fact-styled format that does not sway to a certain perspective or try to influence the reader's perspectives. There is one image presented in the article and it is appropriate and well labeled. I think adding a couple of images of some of the volcanoes they mentioned in the article would have added value and would make it easier for readers to intake the information by relating the words to an image. Overall I think this is a satisfactory article, it provides all the basic information to blatantly grasp an understanding of Katia and Maurice's career and life. Although it does not go as in-depth on their individual lives and what influenced them to get into the career they had, the addition of multiple other sources makes up for the lack of detailed information.