User:GraceGAC/Evaluate an Article
 | 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?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article from a list of C-List Star Trek Wikipedia articles. I am a fan of Star Trek and was wondering if I could lend my knowledge to a lesser developed article. This article matters because it attempts to explain the astonishing medical advancements that are exhibited in Star Trek. When finished I believe it would be a valuable addition to the Star Trek page list. My preliminary impression was that this article was appropriately placed in the C-List category. Its explanations seem somewhat unfinished and unpolished. I hope to be able to contribute in a helpful way.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section of this article seems a little overcomplicated, and it takes too long to get to the point. A reader looking for a short overview would likely be bored. I believe the content of the article is relevant, but it seems unpolished and less concise than it could be. I also believe it is lacking specific information in places where it may be helpful. The article is unbiased, but sometimes delves into unnecessary information. The sources of this article seem relevant, but the photos are not related to the topic at hand. They seem to be placeholders for photos from the actual show. The writing quality of this article could use an overhaul, and the talk page acknowledges this. It seems as though other Wikipedians agree that this page needs help.