User:YamsLeap/Evaluate an Article: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 21:53, 29 January 2022

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?

Yeast expression platform

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

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

This article lacks credible information and reliable sources. Adding more to it will strengthen it and therefore, reflect the available literature on this topic. Given the brevity of this article, it would be difficult for it to contain the necessary credible information that would be required to cover this complex topic.

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: This article's introductory paragraph does a good job defining yeast expression platform and how it is used. However, it may require more information. The article includes statements that leave the reader with more questions than understanding. The article also lacks an overview of the its major sections. Without this information, the reader is unaware for the direction the article will take.

Content: These critiques apply to the following paragraphs as well. Each lack section is too brief to contain enough information. The content that is written is up to date and relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance: This article is neutral as all viewpoints are accurately described and equally represented.

Sources and References: Only two references were used for the entire article. This indicates that not enough resources were used to convince the reader that information provided is credible. Was the information plagiarized? Did the writer compose the article based on their own knowledge? To convince the readers that the information is reliable, it requires more secondary sources.

Organization: The article was well written and it was well organized. The sections that required subsections were organized in a manner that made it easy to know where to look for certain information. There are a few minor grammatical errors.

Images and Media: This article only uses one image. Adding more diagrams would help the readers understand the differences between all the strains addressed. It makes more sense that all the information, including images, be on one page rather than having to seek it elsewhere.

Talk Page Discussion: The talk page discussion included concerns about advertisements that existed. However, the previous editor has already removed them because they felt it was inappropriate and unnecessary.

Overall Impressions: Overall, this article appears to be well written and contains valuable information. However, it doesn't do the complex topic enough justice. It requires more research, a diverse spectrum of credible sources, and more images. By making these changes, it'll strengthen the credibility of this article.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 (Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
-This article lacks credible information and reliable sources. Adding more to it will strengthen it and therefore, reflect the available literature on this topic. Given the brevity of this article, it would be difficult for it to contain the necessary credible information that would be required to cover this complex topic
+This article lacks credible information and reliable sources. Adding more to it will strengthen it and therefore, reflect the available literature on this topic. Given the brevity of this article, it would be difficult for it to contain the necessary credible information that would be required to cover this complex topic.
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 (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.)
-This article's introductory paragraph does a good job defining yeast expression platform and how it is used. However, it may require more information. The article includes statements that leave the reader with more questions than understanding. The article also lacks  an overview of the article's major sections. Without this information, the reader is unaware for the direction the article will take. These critiques apply to the following paragraphs as well. Each lack reliable information.
+'''Lead Section''': This article's introductory paragraph does a good job defining yeast expression platform and how it is used. However, it may require more information. The article includes statements that leave the reader with more questions than understanding. The article also lacks an overview of the its major sections. Without this information, the reader is unaware for the direction the article will take.
+'''Content''': These critiques apply to the following paragraphs as well. Each lack section is too brief to contain enough information. The content that is written is up to date and relevant to the topic.
+'''Tone and Balance''': This article is neutral as all viewpoints are accurately described and equally represented.
+'''Sources and References''': Only two references were used for the entire article. This indicates that not enough resources were used to convince the reader that information provided is credible. Was the information plagiarized? Did the writer compose the article based on their own knowledge? To convince the readers that the information is reliable, it requires more secondary sources.
+'''Organization''': The article was well written and it was well organized. The sections that required subsections were organized in a manner that made it easy to know where to look for certain information. There are a few minor grammatical errors.
+'''Images and Media''': This article only uses one image. Adding more diagrams would help the readers understand the differences between all the strains addressed. It makes more sense that all the information, including images, be on one page rather than having to seek it elsewhere.
+'''Talk Page Discussion''': The talk page discussion included concerns about advertisements that existed. However, the previous editor has already removed them because they felt it was inappropriate and unnecessary.
+'''Overall Impressions''': Overall, this article appears to be well written and contains valuable information. However, it doesn't do the complex topic enough justice. It requires more research, a diverse spectrum of credible sources, and more images. By making these changes, it'll strengthen the credibility of this article.