User:Whytcleft/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](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.)
the lead section provides a straightforward definition of the CPS movement, though it lacks anything beyond a single introductory sentence. it would likely benefit from additions of summaries of the later sections, as well as an increased level of detail regarding the introductory information such as centering it's origins beyond simply the year of consolidation.
the seven content sections are fairly on-topic, though most are short and could benefit from expanding the information relevant to said sections and tieing into contemporary movements, one notable example would be expanding upon the distinction of "formal introduction" and connecting the CPS movement with other contemporary groups such as the civil rights movement and the NAACP in the US. there is a definite feel of half-hearted writing upon the topic, it reads as a introductory article that fails to provide an adequate introduction for the ideas presented.
the tone of the article is fairly neutral, though suffers from a sense of casualness that doesn't seem to provide more than a cursory introduction to an otherwise robust and expansive topic.
the article suffers from a cursory nature that doesn't provide much of a substantial introduction to the topic.