User:Hjamshed/Evaluate an Article: Difference between revisions
adding {{dashboard.wikiedu.org talk course link}} |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
== Evaluate the article == |
== Evaluate the article == |
||
# Evaluating content: In evaluating the content within this article, the audience is only provided with information that is relevant to the topic of environmental policy, reducing excess information that would distract individuals away from the focus. Although the information is accurate and up-to-date, the addition of ...... could be added to make it more effective. Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?, What else could be improved? |
|||
(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.) |
|||
# Evaluating tone: Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?, Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? |
|||
# Evaluating sources: Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?, Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?, Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications? |
|||
# Check the talk page: 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? |
|||
Revision as of 05:57, 8 April 2022
 | 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?
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have selected this article because I am greatly passionate about the influence of political interests, as well as the socioeconomic objectives of international actors in addressing global environmental preservation efforts. The enactment and operationalization of such public policies, such as carbon taxes or natural resource regulations, are greatly relevant to the safety of current and future populations. Additionally, the impacts of climate change disproportionately affect communities of color and of low socioeconomic status. As such, it is important that information that exists online is accessible and accurate, enabling a wide population to become involved in environmental advocacy in a productive manner. Upon initially reading this article, ......
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
Evaluate the article
- Evaluating content: In evaluating the content within this article, the audience is only provided with information that is relevant to the topic of environmental policy, reducing excess information that would distract individuals away from the focus. Although the information is accurate and up-to-date, the addition of ...... could be added to make it more effective. Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?, What else could be improved?
- Evaluating tone: Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?, Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Evaluating sources: Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?, Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?, Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?
- Check the talk page: 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?