User:Isdewell/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

Snowshoe Cat Article [[1]]

I chose this article because I wanted to evaluate an incredibly niche topic on something I didn't know anything about so that my evaluation would be hopefully more unbiased.

• The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic.
• The lead includes a brief discussion of each section that is addressed in the article.
• There is some discussion of "bicolour colourpoint" breeds in the first section that is not explained later in the article.
• The brief is very concise.

• The content in the article is relevant to the topic.
• Content is relatively current, though majority of it has not been updates since 2007.
• Towards the end of the article the information seems to get pretty sparse. When you take a peak at the talk page it appears as though some additional information has not been published.
• This article about cats does not delve into historically underrepresented populations or topics.

• The article is relatively neutral although you can tell that the page was likely authored by Snowshoe Cat owners.
• There are a few descriptions of the breed's demeanor and physical characteristics that show some level of bias towards the breed.
• According the the discussion on the talk page there appears to be an entire section about the UK Snowshoes breeding program that is missing. This perspective is underrepresented.
• There are not any fringe or minority view points represented on the page.
• There is definitely an overarching tone of adoration for the breed which is present particularly in the Characteristics portion.

• Not all facts are backed up by secondary source information. There are some sources missing - particularly in the Characteristics section.
• The sources are relatively thorough. This is a fairly niche topic so they have used the bulk of the sources at their disposal.
• Many of the sources are from the last decade, though the page itself has not been updated in many years.
• There is a relatively diverse spectrum of authors, though not all seem to be appropriate sources. The sources don't they include historically marginalized individuals.
• There are definitely much better sources than some of the sources that are linked throughout the article. Many link to random websites and news articles.
• The links work, but apparently there are some target anchors that have been disconnected.

• The article is relatively well written, though it could be more objective and concise in some sections.
• After several scans, the article appears to be grammatically correct.
• The article is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. There could be more sections too.

• There are quite a few pictures of Snowshoe cats included on the page. They do seem like they may be personal images though. There are no historical or professional images.
• Captions are short due to the nature of the images. Could use more context.
• I believe the images adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations.
• The images could be organized in a more appealing way.

• This is my favorite part of the article by far. At first glance the article itself is pretty sparse and unassuming, but then when you go into the talk page you can see all of the discussion about the information that is there and isn't there. There are questions about validity of sources, about descriptions, wording, information etc. Who would have thought that a niche article about a cat breed I'd never heard of!
• The article is rated C-Class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is "of interest" to two Wikiprojects, Cats and Pennsylvania.

• I would say that this article is in limbo. It seems to have gotten a lot of action in 2007, but since then has been neglected. It needs some sprucing up.
• The article is concise and informative, especially considering the niche-ness of the topic. Of course, there could be more information.
• The article could be improved by adding more sources, cleaning up some of the writing, and adding more information.
• I wouldn't say that it is poorly developed, just underdeveloped.