User:Jmjohnson43/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]Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because I had not heard of the Energy Policy Conservation Act before and it seemed interesting to read about. Upon first read, the article seems to provide a broad overview of the law but does not offer many specifics on the policies within the law. The article also does not include much detail on the law's legislative history.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section
The lead section is strong and concise, and offers a brief overview of what will be discussed in the article. One area of possible improvement for the lead would be to include some language on the crude oil export ban that is discussed extensively later on in the article but does not appear in the lead.
Content
The article appears to be fairly comprehensive as it offers information on the creation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, policies on energy efficiency, and offers a lengthy discussion on the crude oil export ban that lasted until 2015. However, it seems the law is a lot more broad than the article describes and many policies appear to be missing. Content appears to be up to date but the main article includes no mention of the law's legislative history other than similar policies had been supported by previous presidents and cabinet members. There is a brief overview of the legislative history on the right side of the Wikipedia page, but beyond that, no other information is shared.
Tone and Balance
The article does a good job balancing the subject, especially considering the fact that energy policies are very contentious at times. When citing claims made by politicians about the provisions within the law, the author stipulates whether or not these claims are supported by evidence.
Sources and References
The sources included by the author are relevant and the author pulls from a variety of sources to avoid bias. Many sources included by the author are from the last decade and all of the links are functioning as intended.
Organization and writing quality
The article is well written and does not appear to contain any grammatical errors or misspellings. The article is organized in a way that is concise and flows naturally.
Images and Media
There are no images included in the article.
Talk page discussion
The talk page includes only one comment that claims the article is vastly understating how large the law is in scope as it omits many policy areas. While the other provisions the article mentions are included, those provisions are not the only ones included in the law. The article has a C-class and Low-importance rating.
Overall impressions
Overall, the organization and structure of the article is strong and the writing is concise. An area for improvement would be to include more information on the omitted provisions contained within the law and a lengthy discussion on the legislative history of the law. To sum, the article is well-written but would benefit from more detail.