User:Brasson4/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.)Natural science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose Natural Science because I find it interested to read about and it combines many subjects of science into one to understand how things work which is neat.

Evaluate the article

(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.)

Yes the lead includes a beginning sentence that explains what the article will be about. The lead section includes a brief paragraph explaining what the later major sections will be about. All the information that is mentioned is talked about later on in the article. It is concise and easy to read and follow.

The content in the article is relevant to Natural Science breaking it into subsections to understand it better. The content is up-to-date, even consisting of a timeline of the history going back to 400BC up until the present time. All the content is fitting and helps to give the reader a better understanding of what Natural Science is and how it works.

The article is neutral in the writing as there are no sides in Natural Science. Nothing in any of the sections is biased as they just explain smaller areas of science that contribute to natural science.

Everything in the article is backed up by a reliable secondary source and provides links to the main articles for all the sections in the article where the information comes from. All of the references are thorough and made in current times in the 2000's. Many of the references come from one single author but there is a bit of diversity still. The references are peer-reviewed articles which are very reliable and the links work.

The article is well-written and easy to follow as it has on the side a table of contents and is broken down into sections that all go together to explain natural science.

Images are provided that help to understand sections of the topic and there is one for nearly all of the sections listed. Each picture has a detailed caption explaining what it is and they adhere to the copyright regulations. The images are placed in a visually appealing way to not distract from the text but helps to break up all the sections better.

There are many discussions going on on the talk page about ways to expand the topic and article by adding more sections and branches to natural science. The article is in many WikiProjects also like WikiProject: Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, and Technology. The article is rated B-class by WikiProject Vital Articles.

The article lists many sections of science and explains them and how they relate to natural science and it gives the reader a good understanding of many areas of science for future use. They could go into more detail as they are brief but the article is still well-developed and gives many facts and information