User:Kermitdawormit/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 was interested in seeing if there was much information on Moorish irrigation systems, and particularly whether or not there's much definitive information on Wikipedia about their origin being adapted from previous cultures or created by Moorish inventors.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead Section - The lead section is concise and well put together, to covers the big picture points; what a quanat is, why they were used, their location of origin, and the locations where the (under different names) can still be found.
Content - the content of the article to me seems excellent. Its extensive, covering a huge variety of interconnected, relevant points from the construction & restoration of quanats to their origins, technological features & socio-geographic implications. It is both easy to digest, and rich in technical specifics.
Tone & Ballance - The article is well balanced. Because it deals with a relatively objective subject, rather than a social or political topic, it is less prone to suffer from subjective writing. Even so, the author(s) does a great job of providing a neutral. yet varied perspective, which touches on social implications where pertinent.
Sources & References - The sources used are extensive and seem reliable. The number that investigated were peer reviewed scientific articles.
Organization & Writing Quality - The writing is excellent and professional. I couldn't find any grammatical or spelling errors.
Images and Media - The images are relevant and fit well with the article. They enhance understanding of what is being discussed with visual representations and diagrams.
Talk Page Discussion - The talk page is almost as extensive as the article itself, it discusses content, source reliability, quotations, and relevance. It is part of several WikiProjects, including vital Articles, Civil Engineering, Water, and Ancient Near East.
Overall Impressions - I have a very positive perception of this article. While admittedly I did not evaluate it's entirety with a fine-tooth comb, nor am I professional academic or expert on Near Eastern history, I have no negative feedback to offer. the ar6ticle is well thought out, well written, well organized, and professional.