User:Nw1633/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 because I am interested in the topic of theologians and pastors in Germany during the period between the end of World War II and the reunification of Germany. The article matters because the theologian Helmut Gollwitzer was important to the intersection of Christianity and politics. My first impression of the article was that it was really short.
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.)
The lead section is very brief, stating Gollwitzer's years and his occupation. There is nothing else contained in this section, as it is only one sentence long. The content is relevant and up-to-date, but there is much information missing from it when compared to more elaborate articles like biography of early life, studies, and contributions to the academic field. There is only brief information regarding his role in the anti-war movements during the Cold War. The tone and writing quality are neutral and unbiased, but there are only three sources for the entire article and several of them are so outdated they require the Wayback Machine to be accessed. The article's two images are well-captioned, but I'm not sure if they are visually appealing. There has not been any activity on the talk page yet, meaning there has been no communication regarding how to represent the topic.
Overall, the article is well put together and written, but it is missing a lot of information and so is severely underdeveloped. It can be improved through more content regarding Gollwitzer's life, such as his childhood, his academic career, and his activism and his contributions to Christian politics. These additions would also require many more sources for credibility as well.