User:Amcappi/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I like Duke Nukem 3D and some information may be outdated or could be added after the release of Duke Nukem 3D: World Tour. Video games articles also most likely need more sources or to be fleshed out as they are not as important.
Evaluate the article
The lead section appears pretty solid, it introduces the game and why it's important as well as release dates. Maybe there could be more references but I don't think it's super necessary. The content all seems relevant and up to date, it includes all the stuff you would normally need to see in a video game article as well as all the different releases and expansion packs. I think the controversy section could be expanded on to incorporate some more instances or go more into depth on the portrayal of women as mentioned in the lead. The article doesn't appear to be biased in anyway, the article addresses the games controversy fairly and with a neutral stance. There are lots of sources and the links work, they are relevant to the sentences they are cited in. I am kind of surprised by how many they could fit into the article but most are from news sources as it is a video game, they span a good time period as well. The talk page is pretty causal with most of the post being late 2000s but some in the mid 2010s. It is apart of the videogames, comedy and science fiction wikiprojects.