User:FeyUnlocked/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?

History of evolutionary thought

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I have taken a course in evolution and have spent many hours delving into research about evolution and the mechanisms by which populations of organisms change overtime. This article should have an outstanding amount of information to pull from, so it seems like a good starting point.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: This article does a stellar job discussing a summarized history of Evolutionary Thought. It mentions names, ideas, and some literature without swamping the reader with too much information. It does have information about non-evolution based ideas for change - Neo-Lamarckism - however, it doesn't linger for long and isn't terribly out of place.

Content: This section is extremely dense. It contains a substantial information about the past of evolutionary thought, however it does not have many articles about changes in this thought process in the modern era, as most works cited are from much earlier in the past. There isn't much information about equity gaps due to the nature of the information being discussed, though it could talk about marginalized individuals that aren't as often accredited with development. It also seems to be missing some information that some would deem critical towards developing the understanding behind modern evolution, such as Darwin's Finches. Tone and Balance: This article is about a scientific thought process, and as such it is a very neutral article. It looks through the documented history and changes within the field and describes them with accuracy. It also discusses previous views and why they have been disposed of over the current understanding of evolution.

Sources and References: This section is amazing. Not much to say when they have over 170 sources to discuss the history of a topic. The sources could be slightly more current by adding in new information behind Evolutionary Thought, as the article seems to have stagnated slightly (Though that isn't necessarily the editor's faults, the article is already extremely detailed and has a lot of information up to the current era). I would add recent information into the article to allow readers to understand the recent history in this topic.

Organization and Writing: Once again, the article is extremely well polished. It has no grammar or spelling errors that I could find with a quick read through. Each section is independent and hosts the relevant information with plenty of links to other articles on Wikipedia.

Images and Media: This is an area I believe the article could improve. Some of the images used seem to be of a lower quality, and they lack some images that seem crucial towards understanding what brought about the changes in thought during respective time periods. It has some images of people and some ideas/concepts, but it lacks visual aid near the end of the article.

Talks page: The active talks page is currently very sparse because most of the work on this article was done between 2005 and 2010. The previous Talks page logs are impressive. There are multiple sections with lots of information and ideas on how to better improve the article and how to get it to FA status. It differs slightly from how we discussed in class due to the staggering amount of information given by all the individuals participating.

Overall Impressions: This article definitely deserves its FA status. It is extremely dense with relevant information that have incredible sources. It is concise when needed, and has links in almost every sentence to allow readers to gain a better understanding of the information presented. The article is extremely well developed. It is almost fully complete - the only changes I would consider making would be recent changes in thought due to discoveries.