User:Sarahkadhium/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]
This article presented to me because it addresses academic disciplines at the college and university level. This article will help students with research papers since it covers a wide range of academic fields. I also wanted to assess it because the article seemed to be lacking in content, indicating that it was not a good Wikipedia entry.
Evaluate the article[edit]
(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.)
As I was evaluating this report, some aspects stood out to me, such as the lack of a brief overview of the article's main sections in the lead. The lead is very brief and not at all detail-oriented. The content of the article is important to the subject at hand. The article does not include any historical background on the topic. There is no bias in this report. The portion of the article dealing with sources and references is missing, and clicking on the links provides no additional details. This article's organization and writing quality are poor, and it provides little detail or context on the topic. It rather talks about the topic in a poor way before adding any of the academic subfields without providing any detail on them. When I looked around this article, I discovered that I didn't find any detail about it. This article does not contain any photographs. The debate on the talk page for this article appears to revolve around the fact that the referencing is incorrect and that the article does not include any information that is relevant to the subject. My overall impression of this article is that it has more flaws than strengths, and it needs more work to earn the distinction of being a good Wikipedia article. More information on the topic could be added, more outside resources obtained, all links tested, background information on the topic provided, and proper citations made. This article is very underdeveloped.