User:Sarahdanes/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.) Hemp oil
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.)
- randomly selected article
- personally interesting topic
- matters because hemp oil is becoming increasingly relevant due to the legalization of cannabis in many places
- first impression: short, limited information, well sourced
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
- introductory sentence is concise and describes topic
- fact check that pressing hemp seeds are the only way to get the oil
- brief description of major sections included - however sections could be labelled more effectively
- only essential info included in the lead, short lead but article is short as well
Content
- content is relevant
- content and sources referenced seem to be recent
- aside from a brief mention of the use of hemp oil being for cooking and dietary supplements, its use is not expanded on
- minimal information is provided, no historical information included
- article not on a underrepresented population
Tone and Balance
- article is neutral and unbiased
- health aspects are underrepresented
- many viewpoints underrepresented, only basic information provided, short article, not yet complete
Sources and References
- there is no sourcing provided for the information provided about the properties of hemp oil in the lead section, and the description following
- some sources used are unreliable, unprofessional, and written by random people with no education on the topic and no information available on the internet about them
- most sources are thorough
- sources are current, and reflect current ideas on the topic
- sources are diverse and include peer reviewed articles
- links are functional
Organization and writing quality
- article is concise
- some parts are repetitive, or poorly worded
- sections are organized based on information in the article, however the information is minimal and sections can potentially be restructured when more information is added
Images and Media
- images are relevant however first reference photo can be replaced with one more clearly reflective of the article topic
- images in gallery are well captioned
- first reference photo not captioned with detail, a basic simple caption is provided
- unclear as to whether images adhere to regulations
- images laid out in efficient way
Talk page discussion
- a conversation regarding a disagreement over the article title is present, and reflects changes in the article
- conversations regarding numbers not properly explained are present
- conversations about the neutrality of specific sources are present
- conversations regarding the modification of external links are present
- article rated as a C-class article by both WikiProjects it is involved in - article is a part of "WikiProject Food and Drink" and "WikiProject Cannabis"
- Wikipedia provides a more neutral perspective on topics
Overall Impressions
- article is well written, provides neutral information, and is sourced by reliable sources for the most part
- article is up to date
- some sources used are unreliable, some sentences poorly worded
- article could use some revising, issues mentioned in above notes can be revised and attended to
- article is just beginning to be developed ~~~~