User:Theaphillips/Evaluate an Article

Article: Pinterest

I chose to evaluate this article because I am somewhat familiar with the platform Pinterest but I am interested in learning more about how it was created and the background of the company. The article is an important introduction to the history of this social media platform. The article seems strong with its neutral coverage on Pinterest's background.

Lead section

The lead section of this article does a good job in introducing the platform in simple terms in the introductory sentence while also sharing details such as the creators and headquarter location of Pinterest. It also contains Pinterest's goal or purpose alongside examples that may remind the reader of what it is like to use Pinterest and the types of photos that a user encounters on the website, successfully referencing the article's major sections.

Content

The article's content is sufficient and relevant to the topic, including information on the start of the business and its early phases and systems. The content is up to date and thoroughly explores the different parts of the business and platform such as their policies, owners, and features on the website. There is no content that is missing or does not belong in the article as it covers all of the relevant topics such as the interface on the website and legal details such as copyrighted content. The article does not address topics centered around underrepresented populations so it does not address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and balance

This article on Pinterest is written from a neutral point of view, and successfully describes the background and features of the social platform without including an opinionated point of view or attempting to sway the audience to a certain opinion. There are no claims or viewpoints that are favored in the article, and the information in the article is generally factual instead of sharing a certain viewpoint. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader and instead educates the reader on the details surrounding Pinterest.

Sources and references

The facts in the article are backed up by articles of varying reliability, including a lot of articles from news platforms and tech services. These are not all reliable secondary sources of information, but they are current sources for the information included and the source are written by a diverse selection of authors that includes many women. The links provided work, and articles that are older and archived also have working links to the archived webpages. While those articles are not current anymore, they provide accurate information on the history surrounding Pinterest and relevant events that the article discusses from the beginning of the platform.

Organization and writing quality

The article is well written, and with its neutral tone it is also concise and easy to read. It describes everything, including the history of the business behind Pinterest, in a very clear manner. The article does not have any grammar or spelling errors, and it comes across as a proper record of the information behind Pinterest. The article is broken down into many sections that are relevant, nicely distribute the information on the topic, and reflect the main points.

Images and media

The article includes two images of the Pinterest logo, which are sufficient in demonstrating the evolution of the platform and how it has changed over time. It also includes a photo of the founder and a screenshot of the website's design from 2012, providing context for the information about the people behind the platform and a snapshot of what the website was like in the beginning. Each image is properly captioned and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and they are each properly cited. The images are laid out nicely as the first logo is at the top of the article and the others correspond to the sections of the article where they are relevant.

Talk page discussion

The talk page for this article includes a conversation between Wikipedia writers about a phrase that had what one user called an overly promotional tone. The short conversation thread is a bit confusing and it is from 2011, so generally there are not complaints from users about anything in this article.

The article is rated B-class, and is also a level-5 vital article. The article is part of the WikiProjects for Computing Websites, Apps, California: San Francisco Bay Area, and Internet Culture. The conversation on the talk page discusses the article in a more casual manner than the way we have talked about articles in class.

Overall impressions

As a B-class article, it is at a good level and sufficiently describes Pinterest to its readers. The article's strengths include the relevant and descriptive headers for its many sections and the details information on the founders of Pinterest, the legal details, and policies involved in the website. Since the article is rated B-class, it could be improved, and it could include more examples of the user interface and experience or users' Pinterest boards. It could also include sources that are more reliable. The article is well-developed, but could be developed further in order to increase its rating on the Wikipedia scale.

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?[edit]

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]

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

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.)