User:Edwardkim0115/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?

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep

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 this article because it seemed very underdeveloped compared to a lot of other Wikipedia articles I saw. Other articles went extensively into the species and their diet and what threatened them as well as more information about their history. However, this one was very brief and definitely needs more editing and more work on it.

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.)

Lead Section

The lead section provides an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic. However, it does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
The lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
The lead is concise and not overly detailed, but it could benefit from a more comprehensive overview of the article's content.

Content

The article's content is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date.
There is content that is missing, specifically more detailed information on the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep's behavior, diet, and the specific threats that the species faces. This should be included in the article.
The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

The article is mostly neutral, but more information about the specific threats to the species could balance the positive aspects of the article. As of now, there is very little information regarding these threats.
There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. More references, particularly academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books, should be added. There could also just be more websites/sources added.
The sources are not thorough and do not reflect the available literature on the topic.
The sources are not current and are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
There are likely better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well-written and easy to read. It has a clear structure and is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.
There are no apparent grammatical or spelling errors in the article.

Images and Media

The article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic, albeit not many.
The images are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
The images could be laid out in a visually appealing way, and more images could be added to enhance the article.

Talk Page Discussion

There is no ongoing talk page discussion about how to represent this topic.
The article is not rated and is not a part of any WikiProjects.

Overall Impressions

The article's overall status is incomplete. It provides a basic overview of the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep but lacks detailed information in several areas.
The article's strengths include its clear structure and easy-to-read style.
The article can be improved by adding more detailed information on the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep's behavior, diet, and the specific threats that the species faces, as well as more references and images.
The article's completeness is very underdeveloped. It provides a basic overview but lacks depth in several areas. We can see that this article is a lot shorter compared to other Wikipedia articles on species in California.