User:Dontmindthegap/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?
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
While I was born and raised in Canada, I am embarrassingly unfamiliar with its constitution. As the Wikipedia page for the constitution has many edits as well as an active Talk page I chose to evaluate this article, in the hopes of learning more about my own country.
Evaluate the article
The article, while foundationally sound thanks to a number of reliable citations, does still have a few questionable components including subjective language, metaphor, and hyperbole, and incomplete subsections. The talk page does address each of these issues, and the current and past editors are conversing to find solutions for each of the weak points.
The citations used within the article come equally from legal codes from Canada itself and from scholarly works and articles about Canadian history and law. They reflect the most current available information on Canada's Constitution, and reflect the research of a wide variety of sources and authors.
The article itself is easy to read and devoid of any egregious spelling or grammatical errors, and it gives ample verbiage to the majority of its sections.
The Lead section is strong, though could do with less superfluous language in describing the significance of the Constitution.
The "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" portion desperately needs revision and citations. The Constitution Acts sections also require additional citations.
An image of the constitution itself may be a good addition to the article, especially as it is mentioned that the edition currently on display is a recreation. There is only one image embedded in the article, but it is well captioned.
The links in the article are functional.
The article's tone is consistently neutral and unbiased, and clearly presents the available facts.
<nowiki>The Talk page is quite lively, with expanded discourse about the verbiage used in describing Canada's constitution as one of the oldest working constitutions in the world. Dontmindthegap (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)