User:Russell76/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?

Radwimps

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to evaluate this article because it is my favorite band, so I wanted to see their article and see if I could learn more about them. I was also curious how the information would be displayed and presented, as Radwimps is a Japanese band, so I wasn't sure on how sources would be cited in a cross-cultural article, if there were translations and if those translations were correct.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section - I believe that the lead section of this article is good. It properly introduces the band within the first sentence, and then goes further into the information on the band. It subtly touches on a variety of topics, including the formation and history of the band, when they first had commercial success, and what they are most known for. These topics are then further explored later in the article. I think the first paragraph is a valid summary and preview into the rest of the article, and doesn't contain information that is not relevant or explored later. It does this all in two short paragraphs, which I feel is a good length for a lead section. If it was any less it would feel somewhat sparse, and wouldn't properly convey the basic information about the band, and if it was anymore it would feel somewhat bloated and contain unnecessary information.

Content - The content of this article was relevant and covered what I consider to be important aspects of a band, such as history, discography, members, awards, etc. I don't think that too much emphasis was placed on any one topic. It is up to date on all the modern information about the band, including recent albums and award. All content within the article is relevant to the band, and there is nothing that seems out of place or grossly irrelevant to the article. I do not believe that the article addresses or deals with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Although the band is Japanese, which could contribute to a racial gap, they are incredibly popular in the west, and have done soundtracks and released music that is incredibly popular around the world, therefore they have a full and thriving page.

Tone and Balance - I believe that the tone of this article is neutral and doesn't attempt to make the reader think a certain way about the band. All the reporting, statements, and facts written about the band are very matter of fact. The article doesn't try to make you think the band is good or bad, the only thing that could possibly hint towards that is talking about their commercial success, however that is relevant to the band therefore it belongs in the article. No opinions are inserted into the article, and therefore I think that the tone is how it should be, neutral. I also believe that the article is fairly balanced, while there aren't really any viewpoints present within the article, the information that is presented about the band is balanced in the sense where nothing is overrepresented or underrepresented in the different sections present within the article. I do not believe there are any minority or fringe viewpoints present within the article.

Sources and References - From my investigation, all the sources seem reliable and current. Whenever a statement is made in the article, it is always backed up by a source, and these sources are always thorough and accurately reflect the information that is available on the topic. When looking through these sources, they seem to come from a wide range of places and people, including western outlets that have done interviews with the band, statements made by the band members themselves in podcasts and such, and a variety of Japanese news outlets and more. Because of this variety and range of sources, I think it is fair to say the article accurately uses all sources available to it and tries to include sources from marginalized groups when possible. Another boon to this variety is I believe that most sources used are the ideal source and referenced properly. Lastly, when clicking some of the links, even the more obscure ones, they still functioned and led to the appropriate source.

Organization and Writing Quality - This article is well-written and well organized. Every section within the article is accurately titled and there are no writing or grammatical errors within the article. All the information that is presented is written and presented in a clear and concise way and is simple to read, there is no unnecessarily complicated vocabulary and the article is very accessible. Lastly, the article is well organized, with sections that accurately match their header and reflect the major points of the band.

Images and Media - I think that the article includes images that enhance the understanding of the topic. There are only two images within the article, one of the band performing at a concert, and one of the all the members timelines in the band. Both are relevant to the article, and are properly captioned pictures explaining what the image contains. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. They are also laid out in an aesthetically pleasing and justified way, with the picture of them performing as the main picture of the article, and the picture explaining each members timeline in the band is under the correct section and not in any way obstructive.

Talk page discussion - There are currently no conversations going on behind the scene about how to represent this topic. I think if it was an article about an event or a very notable historic figure, there would be much more conversation happening, however, the band is largely unproblematic, and their history is not a highly contested topic. The article is rated as C class, and is part of the projects, Musicians, Japan : Biography / Music, Post-hardcore, and Rock music.

Overall Impressions - I think that this article is complete and up to date, I have no negative feedback. All the sources that I checked were properly cited and up to date. There was no evidence of any plagiarism or image copyright, and all information that was presented was done so in a neutral and non-bias manner. It contained all relevant information a article on a band should contain, and I think that the fact that this is a Japanese band but has a complete Wikipedia article in English with complete sources is a great strength. I don't have any recommendations for improvement, as I think that the article represents what an artist's Wikipedia page should have.