User:Yongfc/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?

Principle of humanity

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

In college, we are constantly exposed to various philosophical and ethical concepts. The Principle of humanity presents an intriguing philosophical topic that allows me to delve deeper into the realm of ethics and human behavior. As a user of Wikipedia, I recognize the importance of reliable and comprehensive information. The article on the Principle of humanity, being a stub, has the potential to be greatly improved. I see this as an opportunity to contribute to the collective knowledge base.

Evaluate the article

Relevance to topic: The content is generally relevant to the principle of humanity. It explains the concept well and provides the originator of the principle.
Tone: The article appears to maintain a relatively objective tone in presenting the definition and origin of the principle. It does not seem to advocate for a particular interpretation or application of the principle but rather presents it as a concept to be analyzed. There are no obvious value judgments or emotional language used in the article. This contributes to a neutral tone.
Currency: There is no indication of whether the content is up-to-date. For a philosophical concept, this may not be as crucial as for some other topics, but it would still be beneficial to mention if there have been recent discussions or developments related to the principle.
Completeness: The article feels incomplete. It lacks in-depth analysis and examples of how the principle is applied in different contexts. For example, there could be discussions on how it is used in ethics, politics, or interpersonal relationships. There is also no mention of any criticisms or limitations of the principle. The article is underdeveloped. It provides a basic introduction but lacks the depth and breadth needed to fully explore the principle of humanity.
Diversity of sources: Since this article has only one source, it clearly lacks diversity of sources. In order to improve the quality and credibility of the article, sources from different authors, different publications and different perspectives should be sought. This can include other philosophical works, academic papers, research reports, news articles, etc.

To improve the article, more content needs to be added on the application of the principle, examples from different fields, and a discussion of its limitations and criticisms. The structure could also be improved by adding subheadings to make the content more organized.