User:Plantbella/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?
I have a basic knowledge of Marie Bonaparte's sexual research. She's important because she was one of the original feminist sexual scholars.
Evaluate the article
Lead
- I feel like Marie Bonaparte's relationship to Napoleon Bonaparte should be addressed within the first sentence, and her description of being "closely linked" to Sigmund Freud is a little vague and could be moved down.
- Description of major sections isn't there, but there is a table of contents.
- Includes only info. from the article.
- It is a little overly detailed.
Content
- Content is relevant to the topic
- Could be updated with the relevance of her sexual research in a present context
- Content does tackle historic women in STEM! So yay.
Tone
- Well balanced
- Not a lot of room for controversy or conflicting views in this topic, it's simply factual
Sources
- Diverse range of sources, male and female authors, books, webpages, images
- Current sources
- Everything is cited
- Sources could be looked at more closely for more information (for example, I have read Bonk, and it includes much more context and nuance about Marie Bonaparte than is mentioned in this article
- Links work
Organization
- Clear, well organized, no glaring grammatical errors
Images
- Relevant, add to the article
- Adhere to copyright guidelines
- Captioned well -- captions provide good image descriptions
Talk Page
- Fact-checking and asking for advice on sourcing
- B-class low importance
- Editors share opinions in talk page, but remain civil
Overall
- Basically complete
- Strong in that it has a good number of sources
- Could contain more about sexual research and its outcomes
- Well developed