User:CaseyChoCSULB/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?

I am evaluating the article on the 1848 United States presidential election.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose the article on the 1848 United States Presidential Election because I am quite interested in American political history and especially the history of elections. 1848 was an important Presidential election because it saw the rise of a broad-based antislavery party in the form of the Free Soil party and was the Presidential election immediately preceding the Compromise of 1850. My preliminary impression was that the article was an adequate summary of the election.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of the article does provide a concise overview of the overall article but maybe overly lengthy. In particular, the lead section contains some statements about the aftermath of the election that is not only unnecessary in the lead election but is not in the main body of the article. The article's content is relevant and complete, recounting the main events of the 1848 Presidential election and providing tabulations of the election results. The article is also largely neutral in POV though it occasionally may be unintentionally biased due to relying on a particular historian such as describing Van Buren's motives in the election being driven by "bitterness". The sources are thorough and up to date with the Internet-based links to sources being still functional. However, a more thorough use could have been made of certain sources to provide additional citations or details for the article. Additionally, the article could have contained some information regarding how nonwhite voters (who were eligible in certain states) or immigrant groups voted in this election. The organization of the article is logical and follows conventions Wikipedia has for articles on US Presidential elections generally. There were no significant spelling or grammatical error that I noticed. The images were perhaps the strongest feature of this article. There were many primary source political cartoons and posters that helps illustrate the article. Additionally, the maps of the 1848 election provide excellent summaries of the differing geographical support bases of each candidate. The article is C-Class and there has been relatively little discussion on the Talk page. The article's main strengths lie in the illustrations and visual summaries of data in the form of maps. The article can still be improved in further synthesizing recent scholarship into the main body of the article with additional details.