User:Tjd416/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]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 since it deals specifically with the topic of disinformation that has been discussed heavily in my class. I found the article to seem very academic, providing a very detailed list of ways the term fits into various fields.
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.)
I found the Lead section to have a strong start. Immediately, the first sentence gave a definition of the term that was then cited by multiple sources. Having multiple sources for a single piece of information helped to confirm its accuracy. Opening with a strong academic overview of the term provides a sense of credibility of the article. I found the tone to be pretty balanced, but noticed that it could be complicated with the examples given on the term. There were a few references to how disinformation is often associated with government propaganda, and providing those examples opens it up for accusations of political bias. I noticed the article worked hard to show examples of Russian disinformation, and examples in the United States, but there weren't actually many examples from other places. Someone going into research what disinformation is might be skewed based on the examples given and preexisting feelings on them. Providing more diverse examples of how disinformation affects other countries and has been applied historically might provide a more comprehensive overview. The length of the article seems appropriate, and the focus and seems to answer an overview of what it is. Maybe spending more space for types of disinformation might help inform the reader better and encourage looking at other articles related to it.