User:PS159C75/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?
While looking through C-Class articles, the selection of articles on amateur radio seemed to be a reasonable enough size to have some variety, but small enough to not be overwhelming. As someone who is studying communications, I also thought that I would find one of the articles engaging. Of the 40 pages listed through the link, Lost Boy Larry had an eye catching title. It also stuck out from the other content, on the page with the action expressed through the alliteration.
Evaluate the article
The lead section is very good, giving a concise amount of information. The rest of the lead paragraph is not as concise, with editing capable of cleaning up some of the excess information present about Larry. Defining who he was was done in the first sentence, so some of the content is better suited for later on in the article (such as the bit about the car being overturned). This is especially glaring because it is not included later on in the article when expanding upon the initial circumstances of Larry's existence.
The content is relevant to the article, although it seems much of the information comes from one secondary source, in this case being the newspaper The Daily Colonist. Although the source is helpful in factual information, it puts the claim of the event being "internationally covered" into question, with this newspaper being the one local to the affected area and the other sources being American news carriers which are republishing the work of other reporters. The style of writing also using many parentheses for bits of information which are better suited as part of the article or not to be included for sake of a concise article. The links do work and the content of the article is strong in contextualizing the importance of this event, such as the connection to hobbyist radio users and the influence this event had on search and rescue protocols in the U.S. This article could benefit from thorough editing not to largely alter the content present, but to better align with Wikipedia's format standards.