User:Xinyuy22/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?

2020 in Asian music (Talk: 2020 in Asian music)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

This article was rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. No matter from which category -- "Regional and national music", " Asia", or "Years" -- this article was labeled as "Low-importance". I am very curious about the reason behind such low ratings so I chose to analyze and evaluate this article.

Evaluate the article

Contents:
- I found myself completely lost in this article because of the confusing connections between the lines and unclear relationships between subtitles. The article listed a bunch of events to set off the beginning. The first event is about some Turkish band group members who were taken to hospital but refused treatment. Why is this event important? Can this event be considered a milestone or turning point for "2020 in Asian music"? This event is much different than the other 3 events talking about music albums. In addition to that, the events included here do not follow a chronological order, with the second event happening in July and the third event introduced in May. The rest of the article is filled with all kinds of names for songs, albums, artists, dates of music release, and Asian Countries affiliations, which is not very informational. I am not quite sure why the authors decided to name "Deaths" of the artists without telling us their art pieces or giving any other background information other than deaths' reasons and nationalities, which seems to be the least relevant to the scope of "music". The divisions of section contents for this article are a disaster. In my opinion, the "Deaths" section would be part of the "Event" section; "Classical" is a genre and appeared very suddenly and unexpectedly after talking about "Events"; "Albums" "Opera" "Film and TV scores" can be 3 paralleling topics, yet the "Musical Films" is actually a branch of "Film and TV score"; "By country" is a type of criteria to sort out information and arrange the contents, it is not appropriate to be a separate subtitle when the majority of the subtitles are divided based on art forms.
- Everything in this article looks like a product of a "stream of consciousness" without planning the outlines, presenting in a way of lacks organization.
- The countries covered in the article are mostly Japan, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Turkey, with only a few mentioning Korea, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Iran, and Israel. It contains an issue of overrepresentation and underrepresentation for some Asian countries that do even not appear in the whole article. It makes sense to be categorized as "low importance" for the scope of "Asia" on Wikipedia.
- After reading the article, I can hardly form takeaways as there is too little information demonstrated and I couldn't make any conclusion around the year 2020 about Asian music.
- There is no image or media embedded.
Tone:
- The article could be considered as neutral as all the texts are hyperlinked artist's names or artworks and there is barely any statement or claims, let alone being heavily biased.
Sources:
- The sources indeed come from diverse publications and authors. However, many sources are coming from news websites (i.e. The Guardian, Newage, etc.) and many of the sources are written in foreign languages used in Asian countries, which makes it hard to evaluate the reliabilities.
- The links of the sources work.
- There are repeated references appear. References 1 & 29 come from the same news article https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/03/banned-turkish-folk-group-member-dies-following-hunger-strike and it is more than 4 years old.

Overall, I believe the quality of this article is under the average and the "C-class" category and "Low-Importance" rating given by Wikipedia makes sense.