User:KCterm/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?

Gender inequality in China

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I have heard about gender inequality in China before, and I was interested to learn more in-depth details. Bringing more educational awareness to gender inequality is important. My preliminary impression was that it will be an interesting topic to contribute to and learn more about.

Evaluate the article

The article's introductory sentence does have a strong relation to the topic, but the rest of the lead section lists a bunch of random statistics that could be put elsewhere in the article. The lead does not include an overview of the major sections of the article. The lead includes some statistics that have ties to other material in the article, but are not necessarily needed in the actual lead. The lead is is unorganized.

The article's content is relative to the topic, but there are flags all throughout that say the content needs to be added to or updated. There is a lot of content that is missing and can be expanded on. The article mentions that it is part of a series on women in society.

The article's tone is overall neutral. I don't see anything that pops out right away to be biased information. There are some parts of the article that seemed to have more information than other sections, therefore the article is a bit unbalanced.

From what I can see, the facts in the article mostly come from reliable sources. Many of the citations are made from academic book and journals. Some of the sources are not current and need some updating. There seems to be a need for more current sources of information on the topic. The links to the sources work when I click on them. The sources seem to come from a diverse spectrum of authors.

Some of the article is well-written, but certain sections seem to need more work. I don't see any grammatical errors in the article so far. I think the organization of the article could use some updating. Some of the main topics seem disorganized in comparison to each other.

There are images included that go along and enhance the topics of the article. The images are well captioned and seem to follow Wikipedia's citation guidelines. However, there are only three images for the entire article. More images could be added to enhance the material.

On the talk page, there is a lot of conversation happening. The conversations revolve around fixing citations, how to correctly use sources, getting facts correct, and rewriting sentences and topics. It seems like some of the last updates happened in 2016. In 2016, the responses and conversations stopped. The WikiProjects of the article include: economics, feminism, gender studies, China, and Women's History. It's rate as a start-class and mid-importance.

I think the overall status of the article is that it is incomplete. The article is mostly unorganized and does not have a strong lead. There are main topics that need to be expanded on greatly. Citations need to be checked, as well as some grammar. There needs to be more images added, and the sources and information in the article needs to be updated to present information and statistics. The article does, however, included a good basis to start on. There are many topics and information that work great for the article. It will be good to expand on.