User:Mariamendoza342/Evaluate an Article

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?

(Provide a link to the article here.) Drug education

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.)

I chose this article mainly because it catches the attention of those who may be seeking for help. This article matters to me because it educated me on how drugs can harm you in any way, it is also beneficial to others not just me. My preliminary impression of this article was good because I was impressed of the amount of work and facts that were included for me to view, I was able to do some research and understand more about drugs and their side effects.

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.)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes, everything in the article was relevant to the topic which was drug education. Nothing distracted me from learning about this.
- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Some information is out of date and does need to be renewed since now things aren't the same as they were back then.
  - Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations? No the article does not misrepresent any information, I was able to find everything with no problem through the links provided in the texts.
    - What else could be improved? Something that could be improved would definitely have to be the outdated information, try to keep the information new, clean and organized when others are interested in viewing.
      - Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes in my opinion I do believe the article is neutral because it focuses on many topics about drugs, it describes certain side effects of drugs and what can be done to help those who are in need.
        Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I want to say a little of both but I will go with underrepresented, just because their isn't as much information in the article than you would expect since drugs are a big thing in today's world. I feel like they should be more to it.
        Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes all the links work.
        
        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? Yes a lot of information is provided with definitions and meanings of different things.
        
        Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications? Yes many authors are being used in this article to provide us with more information.
        What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversations are on this article.
        How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia.
        How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Only that it's a different topic.

~~~~ Maria Malfabon-Mendoza