User:LFCochran/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?

Bruce Avolio

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Leadership scholar Bruce Avolio is one of possible topics my student could select for their assignment. As a field of practice, leadership is an essential topic area in the study of management and organizations. The article was very short which is concerning given the importance of his work on the development of the discipline.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: The lead is brief, to the point, and plainly describes the subject of the article in a professional manner.

Content: This is labelled as a "stub" and clearly needs to be expanded and enhanced. There is very little about the development of Avolio's research, which would be an important part of the article. It would be beneficial to include the peer reviewed published major works that Avolio has authored as well as related Wikipedia articles.

Tone and Balance: It is an article about a living person and must adhere to those requirements. This article maintains a balanced, neutral tone.

Sources and References: Articles and information appear to be largely sourced from the University of Washington. The provided links do work. There is a link to Avolio's Google Scholars page as well as two colleagues Wikipedia pages. It would be beneficial to include links to the peer reviewed published major works that Avolio has authored. The references provided are at least 3 years old and current ones do exist.

Organization and Writing Quality: The limited writing provided is concise and appears to be free of grammatical errors.

Images and Media: This article does not include any image or media files. There are ones available that would inform the reader if provided.

Talk Page: The Talk Page does not contain any discussions editors but is a part of two WikiProjects (Biography and Psychology). It includes an excellent reminder of the policies regarding articles about living persons. The information about ongoing projects included ways to contribute to the effort!

Overall Impression: This article has the status of being a stub. It is lacking on content and graphics. It does provide links to updated content but not peer reviewed and authenticated information. A significant improvement to this article would be the addition of content about Avolio's work from verified reputable sources (both primary and secondary). There are suggestions on the Talk page for additions, which would be a good starting point. It is an undeveloped article that has potential.