User:Fmsrlyams/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?

Afo-A-Kom

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

The Afo-A-Kom is a carved figure that represents the power, wealth, and body of the Laikom people. I am choosing to evaluate this article because I am currently editing and adjusting the Kom wikipedia page and this sculpture was made by the Kom community.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: The lead section is fairly short, but it starts off with an immediate explanation of the object, where it's from, who made it, and how it had been returned after being stolen. I feel this lead section is short and simple but says exactly what it needs to for this specific article to a reader who may only be interested in a brief explanation.

Content: The content seems to be up-to-date with fairly recent edits by a handful of people. I wish it discusses more as to what it is used for in spiritual practice and WHY it is so important to the Kom people. It says it is very significant but we aren't really given much elaboration on the aspects of the statute that are culturally powerful and why they may be seen that way (Divination reasons, mystical reasons? What objects normally hold spiritual power in this culture and why? How is this connected to the Afo-A-Kom?)

Tone and Balance: I feel this article is unbiased but carries a tone that resembles story-telling in a way, rather than a presentation of fact combined with the Kom belief (and this must be explicitly distinguished as belief) . For example, the author talks about the statue bringing destruction to the people who stole it from the Kom, and how the person who stole it tried to throw it in the sea only to get back home and see it there. This is obviously a cultural story with impact, but I do not feel it shows an accurate historical representation of events. They started the story with "The Kom believe..." but did not show the other perspective. This could be interpreted as bias.

Sources and References: The bibliography seems kind of bare, there are no notes for the sources and some of the citations seem to be lacking in information. The sources, do, however, look to be reliable (Nat Geo, The New York Times, University of Geneva). I do appreciate the number of links to other wiki articles that the page has. The links within the bibliography that I am able to click on are in working order. Some citations are still needed within the body of the article itself, some links are broken. I am positive that there are other sources available that could have been used and cited, given how mainstream Nat Geo and The New York Times are. I feel there must be more academic journals that talk about the Afo-A-Kom.

Organization and writing quality: The sentence structure seems slightly off in that there tend to be large groupings of very short sentences followed by run-on sentences. I feel like there could have been a better variation in sentence structure. Overall, the writing quality is adequate.

Images and Media: There are no images on this page. However, there is a link to an image in an article that was cited. In the body, it gives instructions to scroll down and click to find the image. I feel since Wikipedia is meant to compile a lot of information into one place, it feels a little bit unproductive to instruct the reader to look into other sources when the page is about an object. There should be images on the page. A map may also have been useful.

Talk page: There is only one post on the talk page and it is an explanation for inconsistent source material.

It's in the Wiki projects Africa/Cameroon, sculpture, and visual arts. It is rated as a low-importance Africa article.

Overall Impression: I think this article is fairly underdeveloped but has promise. Some sources and formatting needs to be fixed but I feel the information stated has the potential to be better.