User:Enguyen27/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?

Begonia grandis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

The reason that I chose this article was because of the name. The name of the plant got my attention because I have not seen it from anywhere before so I wanted to learn more about it.

Evaluate the article

Right of the bat the article presents the reader with facts of the flower like where it comes from, some characteristics of the flower itself, and other fun facts that are there to hook to reader into learning more about the flower. The whole first paragraph is short and sweet in terms of the content that it provides about the plant.

The content itself is not anything long which means that all of the information is quite relevant to the plant and nothing seems to be distracting from the main topic, which is the Begonia grandis. The overall length of the article can be beneficial for readers who are looking for quick and reliable information.

The tone and balance are in a netural perspective, which makes sense when discussing topics about a plant.

When it comes to orgnization, the article is very organized with the information about the plant of the left side while there are some other facts of the plant on the right side, like the kingdom and species of the plant. This makes it easy to follow the information that the article is presenting and it also helps that the writing is straight forward, making it not confusing to read.

Moving on to the images that the article provides, it is laid out in a way that doesn't distract the readers. There are only two pictures related to the plant in the article which may seem too little, but for the size of the article I think two pictures is the right amount. The pictures don't add anything special to the article but they are there to provide some visuals of what the plant looks like to the readers.

The talk page did not have any disucssions to it, but it is a WikiProject.

The strengths of this article are that it is clear in describing the charactersitics of the plant. Another strength would be the length of the article, making it short and sweet is more attractive for readers who are looking to get quick information. All though it could be considered a weakness if the reader is looking for more information about the plant. That is where the article can also be improved, adding more information can be beneficial for readers who are looking at this plant more in depth. If I were to assess this article, I think it has good classification but I think the article itself is a bit under cooked for what I am looking for in a plant article. I would like to see more information presented about the plant like it's reproduction cycle or any uniqueness to them compared to other plants other than their natural habitats.