User:Cmhernandez/Evaluate an Article: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 20:57, 17 September 2021

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?

Hammerhead shark - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Fun Fact about me: I love sharks. Shark week in my household is considered a holiday week. I chose this article because it was a C-rated article and thought it could use some attention.

Evaluate the article

The wording in the first sentence is not appealing, "The hammerhead sharks are a group of sharks that for the Sphyrnidae." The lead of the article speaks of hammerhead sharks, which is good because the article is titled Hammerhead Sharks. It does not seem to give a lot of information to draw in the reader. I think the wording is not concise and relatively choppy. The lead does not include a any type of description of what the article will be discussing.

To me, there seems to be a lot of information missing. This is more of a barebones article about hammerheads. This article does seem to be neutral. This is a neutral topic that just talks about the marine facts of the hammerhead shark.

The pictures are clear and easy to see but the pictures do not have a source attached to them. The photographer is not being given credit unless you actually click on the picture. Is that normal? The pictures are great quality though, very pleasing to look at (Except for the shark murder, not pleasing to look at).

When I click on some of the sources that were provided, it takes me to links such as ScienceDirect, Discovery News, Earth News, and other science sites. I consider this to be relatively reliable information. Then we have some sites like SportsDiver which I am not sure if it would be considered

As I look at the talk page, it is just correction of information. I also saw people complaining of the pictures, saying that they could not see the shark. someone had edited a picture and justified why they edited it. Also, Also people just expressing what I believe are personal opinions. It also people asking for more information on the that was not there. They came to the Wikipedia page to find more information on hammerhead sharks and they were disappointed in what they found.