User:Nyxtingale/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?

Article: LGBT themes in African diasporic mythologies

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Why did I choose it?

I am of a "complicated" African diaspora
I want to better understand cultures I was taught to view as scary
Vudu in Haiti is especially one of them (see: The Princess and the Frog)
I love learning about different cultures' mythos and how it translates to current day beliefs, whether they are helpful or harmful

Why does this matter?

it's important to better understand the positionality of cultures before making a decision on that spectrum
better to have the whole picture before rushing to conclusions

What was my preliminary impression?

interesting theme
missing lots of specific countries/cultures
relies heavily on one author's writings from 2004 or earlier

Evaluate the article

Evaluating content

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
- Yes everything is relevant.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
- Though mythologies are timeless, the sources used are quite outdated and primarily the perspective of one author
Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
- As far as I can see, little equity gaps. Some stories could be re-examined to see if they are truly as violent as written here (common issue that pre-colonial African peoples are portrayed as violent and cruel).
What else could be improved?
- Could be better divided into different regions of the African diaspora, eg. Greater and Lesser Antilles, Caribbean, different African regions/peoples

Evaluating tone

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- The tone is pretty neutral. It seems to be reciting stories.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- N/A

Evaluating sources

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
- The links work!
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from?
- Not enough references
Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
- Neutral enough, I believe.
Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?
- No, there is primarily one author being sourced on this information.

Checking the talk page

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- People are discussing whether this page should even exist. Personally, I think it's a pretty important piece to exist within the "LGBT themes in mythology" series, albeit a broad article in and of itself.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- The article is rated as Start-class: a preliminary article with plenty of room for improvement.
- Part of the following WikiProjects: Mythology, Religion, African diaspora, LGBT studies.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- This article itself is a lot more nuanced and conjecture-based compared to some other Wikipedia articles, which to me makes sense because it is discussing centuries-old mythologies. Compared to the class environment, the talk page is definitely a lot more polarized and feels a bit angry at the fact that such a page exists. Clearly, more work needs to be done to make this page one worth reading and keeping on Wikipedia.