User:CL.07/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](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article because it is related to a topic that I am familiar with and I know has importance. However, the actual article content assessment was rated as C-class. My first impression was that article was very long and had a lot of good information included
Evaluate the article
[edit](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.)
The lead includes an introductory sentence that in my mind provides a concise and clear description of the article. It does seem to include a brief description of the article's major sections. I do not see anything in the lead that is not present in the article. It is also very concise considering the length of the article. Regarding the content it does seem to be updated quite frequently, however in the talk section it is obvious there is so controversy regarding what level C is considered. Whether it has a use in general-purpose programming or not is also being argued. The tone of the article is neutral as to be expected, but their are cases of claims such as saying c-language should be used for a certain activity that is debatable. The sources are thorough, cover current information, and display a wide variety of information. The article is organized into similar sections based on the information. I was not able to find any grammar or spelling errors. The article does include a couple of graphs and images that are sourced correctly and add to the overall content. The talk page shows that article is rated highly important in terms of topic, but is overall C-class in terms of content quality. It was a former featured article and was nominated for deletion in 2013. Overall the article needs to clarify where the language needs to stand, and then wrap the article more around that point. I would say the article is well-developed, and so I am not sure why it is C-class.