User:Court.pow2/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?

Draft:Péter Virágvölgyi

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I am interested in all visual arts. This article is on a man who was a graphic designer. I decided on this specific graphic design article because the author of it chose to include useful images of the designer's work.

Evaluate the article

To begin, the lead section is very well done. It is short and to the point. It gives the basic information about the graphic designer and briefly previews the information later written about in the rest of the Wikipedia article. Next for the content, it is all relevant to the topic at hand. It was also updated on December 21, 2020, so it is up to date information. As for information missing, I believe this article could use more specific information on the artist's other works. It has a section specifically on his Italic handwriting, but not on his other contribution to the visual arts. This article's topic is one that is probably more obscure because the artist is Hungarian, so it also provided information on something less represented. When looking at the tone and balance, we see that the author of this article stays very neutral and doesn't attempt to persuade at all. With the resources, the author pulled from many different ones. They used a book, documentary, and a few articles. These all have various publication dates, but is still the most current information because this artist died in 1998. There are limited sources used however, and it seems that the author mainly pulled information from the video and the book (given that the articles don't provide much information about this artist). Nevertheless, after doing some more research, those two sources seem to be the best to use information from. Then, the organization and writing quality were both very good. This article was easy to read and didn't seem to have any grammatical errors. With images and media, there are four pictures of his artwork and books provided. These help to show what different kinds of artwork he did and his books. It would have been helpful, though, for a picture of the artist himself to be present in the article. Plus, after looking into these images, I see that they all adhere to the copyright regulations. For the talk page discussions, there are not any currently. Finally, my overall impression was that it is a good, neutral, informative article. However, it needs more time put into it and more information added about this artist and his artwork.