User:Palpatitus/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?[edit]

John of Seville

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]

Chose it because John of Seville came up in the class and the article is rated as a start-class. The Christian-Islamic conflict and transmission of ideas additionally interest me. The article matters because he was an important figure in translating knowledge from Arabic to Latin. The page is short but well-done with numerous citations. It lacks details of John of Seville's private life & family or relations, patrons or rivals.

Evaluate the article[edit]

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
- The article contains reference to the fact that John of Seville's identity is a matter of scholarly dispute, which is an important question, certainly, but can cause some confusion.
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- The initial claim that John of Seville was a Jew is uncited but stated as fact. While the article freely admits that this is contested, the citation for that sentence is lacking as well.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- The viewpoints that can be represented with the data available in the current state: Who was John of Seville, is presented in a reasonably fair manner as a matter of time spent.
Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
- Citations 3 & 6 at least work and support the claim they purport to.
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
- No, not all facts are appropriately referenced. Neutrality of all sources briefly reviewed seems adequate.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
- One citation is from 1959. Some additional in-text citations could be helpful. I would definitely like to see an exhaustive list on the article in it's own section about all the works he is credited for translating.
Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- The talk page agrees with me! Yay!
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- The article is within the scope of two wikiprojects, WikiProject Biography, & WikiProject Middle Ages. It's rating is start class in the former and is as yet unrated in the latter.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- Brings out the fact that his identity is dispusted, and that he is credited for a single original work.