User:Cat241912/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?
Biology and sexual orientation
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Interested in the psychology behind gender identity and how it relates to biology
Evaluate the article
I think the leading section does good job of introducing the topics discussed but doesn't go in detail about major sections of the article but otherwise is pretty concise. Content is relevant to the topic. Some content could have gone more into depth in comparison to others. Has an overall neutral point of view. Multiple references used in each sub topic as well as included further reading. Good organization started with fetal development and gender into childhood and then went into adulthood gay and lesbian identities as well as political aspects. Only references one photo in entire article. It would have made more sense to either tie in multiple images from references to other media or none at all instead of just one throughout a long paper. Overall factual read on developmental psychology and biology on gender and sexual orientation. ~~~~