User:Abbybh/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]It is a wikipedia article on my mom, I figured I would be able to accurately edit the page.
Evaluate the article
[edit]lead section: yes, yes, no, concise
content: yes, no; the content only goes up until 2019, leaving her working at her old job. missing content only because it is not up to date. no
tone and balance: yes, no, no, yes, no
sources and references: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes some, yes
organization and writing quality: yes, no, yes
images and media: no images used
talk page: no conversations, it was made during women's history month
overall impressions: very good, accurate, the strength is the style of writing and the accuracy in which it's written in. Adding more information that is more current. I think that it is a little underdeveloped, however it is well made.