User:Tbeaisasn579779257/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?

Grigory Potemkin

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article to evaluate because it has to do with something with another topic I aim to improve/add in Wikipedia and evaluating it would help me grasp the topic a little more. Seeing the article, I personally expected it to be small however was surprised to see a detail article with a lot of information.

Evaluate the article

To start evaluation of the article it fulfills the first part of it. Giving a very basic introduction in the first sentence, what you need to know in the first paragraph, and the reminder gave a summary of the whole article although it sometimes goes a bit too detailed. Thus, it succeeds in all points with a few improvements needed.

The content of the article continues to show high quality. Almost all content is related to the subject (although some details are too much or unrelated to the topic). Regarding the dating all of it seems up to date. Coming to content included or not included this depends on one’s opinion I believe it should briefly discuss a few figures that met with him however it is a possibility that the editors will disagree with me. Overall, however it’s a strong article including a lot of information.

When the article comes to tone it’s still has flying stars albeit lower than the previous two point. It mostly sticks to a neutral point of view although its does say some points that places the article towards some sort of opinion. However, it seems to follow a neutral and it’s not trying to convince the reader of a certain point of view.

Sources are strong though it seems like it lacks from many primary sources. Secondary sources on the other hand are numerous with high quality sources all around using mostly academic books. Although, there are a few claims that are given “clarification needed,” or “citation needed,” so the article still needs to work on sources a bit more.

Images are well used to explain who it is and where a place is. All of this gives the readers a larger idea of the topic like where he died, what is his coat of arms, where some of his battles were fought, and some pictures of him. There are however images that are simply out of place or not provided any context. These either needed to be given better clarified or removed.

The Talking feature revels a whole new world of this article. With it being listed as a “good article,” in early 2011. There are several debates including the way to spell a name, about the subject’s relationship with Catherine the Great, and other ideas. Unlike class the debate doesn’t involve a topic or how something happen but how to mention it or spell it. Some are basic such as how to spell the name (in other Wikipedia pages before I evaluated this page, I saw debates about if they should include x or not).

Overall, the article is a good one. It gives all the information one needs. It also tries its best to give a natural view of the subject. It needs however to remove some words/sentence to improve it. It needs to be developed a bit more on a few issues however its very well developed.