User:Kbrad41/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Little Red Riding Hood (1997 film)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]This article was chosen by the professor because it has a low number of editors visiting it and working on it, providing a safe place for us to learn to edit articles.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The plot section of this article is lacking detail as it gives a very brief and confusing summary of the plot. It also seems as if the author is making connections and claims about the meaning of the film on their own, rather than writing about connections that have already been made in reliable sources. The sources don't seem very reliable and aren't very diverse as more than half are from the same website. There also isn't much discussion going on in the Talk page, so it seems that this article has not been checked very well and is the work of very few people, making it less reliable.