User:Kaseyfountain/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?

Norwegian Forest cat

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I am very much a cat person and am very interested in animal breeds/ Veterinary medicine. I have always loved this breed and thought I would take a look into it. I also have a lot of Norwegian in my heritage (my grandma was an immigrant from Norway!). First looking at the article, it seems to have a decent amount of information, especially the history of the breed.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: The first sentence of the article clearly states that the topic is the Norwegian Forest cat. The article does briefly explain the history of the breed, the personality, and health issues found, which are the next sections. I think the lead is pretty concise but is heavily focused on the history and also mentions a gene that was linked to health problems, which I think could have been mentioned later in the article.

Content: The content is definitely relevant to the topic, and the content is up to date. The last edit was made mid September of 2021, and has had many edits previously. The content is very fitting and I think adding more would make the article feel a little too long. I do not think this article deals with one of Wikipedias equity gaps. This article focuses on the cat breed and it touches on the history of Norway but I do not believe that any of the information has been historically underrepresented.

Tone and Balance: The article is very neutral, it would be hard to make this article biased in any way since it is about a breed of cat. There is no opinions in this article, it is clearly fact-based that is supported by other articles.

Sources and References: Overall, the article does have many sources cited, but there are a few facts that still need citations. Most of the sources are in a different language so it is hard to see exactly what the sources are and where they came from. From what I can get out of them, there is a wide array of sources used, from veterinary medicine sources, to encyclopedias, to press articles. Many of the sources are older, dating back to the early 2000's and late 1990's, but there are a few that were published within the past few years. The links do work but some take a while to load. While a few of the sources are from news articles, most of them are from peer-reviewed articles or encyclopedias.

Organization and writing quality: The article is clear, concise, and easy to read. The only error I found was the spelling of "organization", the article spelled it as "organisation". The sections are well organized, but the "personality" section seems short and choppy. Overall, the sections cover the main parts of the topic.

Images and Media: All of the images are of the cat breed, which fits with the topic. The titles of the images fit the image, although there is no citations for the pictures. When clicking on the pictures, it brings up the person who posted it but no citation. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion: The discussions are mainly just small questions, relating to the origin of the cat breed or other questions about the breed itself. There were also some changes to the pictures, as someone thought one of the pictures was labeled wrong. This article is in the scope of the Wikiproject Cats and Wikiproject Norway. It is rated GA-class. The only difference from the way we talked in class was that some people were making rude comments about the page, like that it was not nearly as good as other cat pages. From the talks in class, this is not how you should go about changing something.

Overall impressions: This article has good organization and keeps the subtopics concise without too many words. Although, some of the wording could be changed, but I think people who speak different languages (especially Norwegian) have contributed so that may be a reason for this shortcoming. The article also needs more citations. Overall, I think this article is well-developed, it just needs a few changes to make it better.

~~~~