User:Ishira25/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?

Lisa Iezzoni

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article, because Dr. Iezzoni is an uncommon leader. I am amazed at all of the work she has done to improve healthcare rights for people with disabilities, and I would love to be involved in her field of research in the future.

Evaluate the article

The lead section is concise and definitely introduced me to the topic. It was convenient to have links to all of the article's major sections.

The content section definitely includes many of the major points and deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, because Dr. Iezzoni is a woman with a disability. However, the content is not up to date. There is no section that outlines Dr. Iezzoni's research and major contributions to academics even though she is a leading researcher. Moreover, the most recent award mentioned is from the year 2000 and the most recent sources are from 2018, indicating that the page has not been updated in some time.

The tone of the article is extremely neutral and unbiased. The article is balanced. There are no viewpoints that guide me towards a particular position. In addition, the article does not try to persuade me; it simply tells me who Dr. Iezzoni is.

The information is definitely backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. The links do work, and there are a variety of sources. The sources are fairly recent but not up to date, since the most recent sources are from 2018.

The article is well-organized and easy to follow. However, there is a major gap in the organization in that there is no section to describe Dr. Iezzoni's research.

There are no images included. Incorporating an image of Dr. Iezzoni would be especially helpful and it would also establish her embodiment as a woman with a disability.

The talk page of the article does not appear to have any conversations. The article does not appear to be rated or part of any WikiProjects. In class, we have tremendously respected our uncommon leaders and been inspired from them. However, this article maintains a neutral and unbiased tone.

Overall, the article does a fantastic job being concise and providing an unbiased overview in terms of Dr. Iezzoni. However, I believe the article is not complete in that there is no section that describes Dr. Iezzoni's research. It would also be helpful to have an image of her. It definitely covers an important topic, because Dr. Iezzoni is an uncommon leader.