User:SJB808/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?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
As it pertains to room acoustics, I wanted more information about how soundproofing an environment affects the sound waves within that space.
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.)
The “Soundproofing” article begins with informative leading statements that give readers a brief definition as well as a subdivided categorical breakdown. All of the body paragraphs were all very concise, yet gave much insight into how each method can be effective to contribute to sound reduction. Organization was well done, and the article was extensive, even giving specific insight for different soundproofing locations, such as for cars, residences, etc. Most of the tone throughout the article was neutral and consistent, however, there are instances where the tone shifts and can sound a bit biased. For example, in the “Floor Soundproofing” section, the author wrote “Leaving a gap between the joist and subfloor plywood is the most efficient way to install soundproof flooring.”. The term “most efficient” can loosely be interpreted as an opinion. The author should have wrote “Leaving a gap between the joist and subfloor plywood is an efficient way to install soundproof flooring. This article deals with a lot of different physics concepts, but not all of the paragraphs have cited sources and there are very few images to help illustrate these concepts. This article is apart of a wiki project entitled “Professional Sound Production” and has been given a C-rating on the quality scale. The conversations on the talk page consist of Wikipedians discussing different theories as well as asking for clarification, or condensing of certain sections. Overall, in my opinion the article is making a valiant attempt to cover a lot of ground and provide much insight into the various methods that an individual can approach soundproofing an environment. However, certain areas need some revisioning as well as citations in order to improve the intelligibility and credibility of the information.