User:Aosborn01/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 chose this article because it was rated c-class and had a short lead section.
Evaluate the article
- The lead section of this article is concise, but it's also too short because it doesn't cover all the major sections of the article.
- The Etymology section doesn't need to be so long and detailed. It borders on being overly detailed about topics that are unrelated to the Mugwump and its lore.
- The two fishermen's account of the creature's appearance is not a great source. What is good, though, is that the article makes it clear when claims about the Mugwump are alleged. It's tone is neutral and not trying to convince the reader of the lake monster's existence.
- Since this is a folkloric creature, there are no pictures of it in real life, but an illustration could give the reader an idea of what its supposed to look like. The picture of Lake Timiskaming could still be included with later mentions of the Mugwump's habitat.