User:LofgrenSFSUenglish465/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](Provide a link to the article here.) Borne (novel)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose this article to evaluate because I like Jeff VanderMeer's work, and this article looks like it's had significant work done on it, but it does not seem finished yet.
Evaluate the article
[edit](Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
Lead Section:
The lead section is two sentences touching upon the authors name, the year it was published, and two of the main themes of the book. It is concise, contains all the main information, and does not include any frivolous information.
Content:
The article has three main sections including a plot summary, the background, and the book's reception. The content is up to date, and relevant, and there is no content that does not belong, however, there does seem to be some missing content. All the sections could be significantly expanded upon, especially the plot section which is only three sentences. There could be a section added for characters, setting, etc.
Tone and Balance:
The article is written from a neutral point of view, there are not multiple points of view, and the writers are not trying to persuade the readers or sell any books. In the reception section, there are only positive comments made about the book from reliable and unbiased sources. Negative reviews and criticisms, if they exist at all, have been left out.
Sources and References:
There are eleven sources on this Wikipedia page most of them are newspapers or journals reviewing the book. The sources are current, thorough, and reflect the current literature.
Organization and writing quality:
The writing is clear and concise. I don't see any errors in grammar or spelling, and the article is well organized.
Images and Media:
There is only one image and it's the cover of the book.
Talk page discussion:
There is no talk on the talk page as of yet. The article is rated Start-Class and is under WikiProject Novels.
Overall Impressions:
The article is underdeveloped as of now, but what is there is well written and of good quality. Improvements could be expanding the plot section to include more details, adding a character section, and adding qualified criticisms to balance out the positive perspectives.