User:Sawadoky/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office - Wikipedia

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?

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

I chose this article because there has been a lot of claims lately about humans not being the only species on this planet and the government had just recently announced on live tv that they have found non-biologically humans in custody and that made me curious. it matters to me because I thought we were the only species on earth, and i always wonder, If aliens are real why are they not on earth trying to bond with us humans. My preliminary impression of this article was " what else are they hiding."

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.)

Lead section:

Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.

Yes, the lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections.

No, all information on the lead is found in the article.

The Lead is overly detailed.

content

The article content is relevant to the topic.

No, the content is not up to date,

The recent UFO findings and the government confirming the existence of non-human beings is missing from the article.

Yes, the article deals with some equity gaps, and it doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and balance

Yes the article is neutral

There are no biased claims.

The viewpoints are underrepresented.

Yes minority viewpoints are accurately described as such.

The article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, it's just neutral.

Sources and References

Yes, all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source.

Yes, the sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.

Some of the sources are current.

Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and they include historically marginalized individuals.

Yes, there are better sources available.

Yes, the links work.

Organization and writing quality.

Yes, the article is well written

There are no grammatical or spelling errors

Yes, the article is organized it's broken down into sections

Images and Media

Not really, the article only contains one image and two videos

The one image is well captioned

The one image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations

The one image is laid out in a visually appealing way

Talk page discussion

I'm pretty sure conversations like staying neutral, not saying too much and trying not to scare the populations are going on behind the scenes.

The article is rated as "start" I don't think it's part of Wiki Projects

Wikipedia is neutral about this topic and it's like it's not a major problem even though it's the discovery of a whole different species.

Overall impressions

The article's overall status is complete and published.

The article's strengths are the evidence, and staying neutral but it lacks pictures.

This article can be improved by making the content up to date, there's a lot of new information missing from it.

The article is well developed but I can add more new information and thoughts to it.