User:Chickadee101/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?

Risk management

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose risk management because I wanted to read something related to my Master's program, Communications, and the article about risk management happened to catch my eye. Risk management is an important skill to hone as a communications expert because being knowledgeable on such a topic could help someone develop strategic crisis communications plans based on the risks of different projects.

My first impression of this article was overall positive. There are certain sections that seem like they could be reworded into something a bit more powerful, but I still thought the topic was intriguing. This article needs more citations.

Evaluate the article

Lead section

I was able to identify the topic of the article based off the first sentence, however, the structure of the sentence felt a little awkward.
Overall, the lead section needs a little love and care-- the information is good, but it would be good if someone combed through this sentences to help them flow a little better.
Needs a little more clarity when it comes to what the article is going to be about. In my mind, lead sections are supposed to be abstracts-- give a brief overview of the article at large-- but this read as an additional introduction paragraph to me.
The lead section mentioned a professional role-- risk manager-- but this is the only place where such a role is mentioned. It would've been nice to learn a little more about what such a position entails.
The lead section wasn't over detailed, but the constant use of parenthesis made the section feel fluffy.

Content

The article's content is relevant to the topic.
Citing more recent sources could help strengthen the article
As far as I could tell, the article did not highlight marginalized groups.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral.
There are no apparent biased claims.

Sources and References

A few facts need to be backed by citations and secondary sources.
Books, academic articles, and magazine articles were all used as sources.
There are a small number of current sources; the majority come from the early 2000s.
The links I clicked on worked

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is easy to read
No spelling errors, but there are a few grammatical errors.
The article was well organized into different topics and sections.

Images and Media

The article only utilizes one image.
The image is well captioned.
The image is public domain, so I believe it adheres to Wikipedia's copyright rules. It would be nice if there was a link to the original image source or a citation of who originally created the image.
The image is not used in a visually appealing way-- it's just pasted at the top of the article.

Talk Page Discussion

There are no conversations on this article's talk page.
This is a C-rated article and is a part of the Wiki Education foundation.

Overall Impressions

I think the article's overall status is passible, but it has the potential to be elevated to excellence.
This article can be improved by giving it a consistent writing style.
The article is mostly complete-- there are some points brought up in the lead section that needed further development within the article at large.