User:CarsonJones06/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]

Science communication - Wikipedia

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

I chose this article to evaluate because I wanted to pick a topic related to communication to get an idea for my final project. I have majoring in a science related field so I thought it would be applicable to look through the Wikipedia article that incorporates science and communication. My first impressions were that it seemed pretty detailed regarding the amount and type of information that it includes.

Evaluate the article[edit]

Lead Section: The lead section has a good introductory sentence that describes the overall topic of the article and if the reader wanted a quick overview of the whole article, reading the lead section would give them a pretty good sense of the overall article. The lead section does not however include a description of the major sections, this would be beneficial to include so that if someone does not want or need to read the entire article, they can just see the sectional breakdown and go to the section they are interested in. It does not seem like there is any information in the lead section that is not included in the rest of the article. The lead section does seem overly detailed in some instances. For example, the lead section describes the difference of science in-reach and outreach. It then goes into specific examples of each one which could be more applicable in the later sections.

Content: The overall content of the article is relevant to the topic and goes through a lot of the aspects that are in the topic of science communication. Looking at the sources and the information pulled for the contents most of the information seems up to date. There is a lot of content in this page and there does not seem to be missing any overall content that should be added. The content includes the different methods of science communication, and the role is plays in popular culture and society. This article deals with equity gaps in Wikipedia by allowing the article to be viewed in eight different languages. This article also has a section that is focused on inclusive communication and cultural differences which is very important with regards to a topic that might be focused on Western science and knowledge. Including this section aims at breaking down that equity gap and acknowledges the cultural differences that might arise in a topic of science communication.

Tone and Balance: The overall tone of the article is neutral. Other than a couple sentences saying "superstitious beliefs" regarding religious or spiritual beliefs sounds biased towards the scientific field. There are no big claims that are biased towards one position or another. All the claims are cited by sources used throughout the article. While the views of western science communication are very prevalent in the article there is a whole section that acknowledges cultural differences of the topic. More expansion on different cultures ideas of science communication should be added. Again, while minority or fringe points are mentioned that western science is linked to colonialism and imperialism and that communication is culturally based, more examples or differing ideas regarding science communication would make this article more inclusive. The article does not try to persuade the reader into believing one side or another, rather it just puts the information forward of the overall topic.

Sources and References: All claims and facts mentioned in the article are cited. Most of the sources are current with a few that come from the 1980's and 90'2 which might need to be updated with more current sources. The authors do seem to be written by a different variety of authors. The sources are thorough and are claims and facts are backed up by secondary and primary literature. Marginalized individuals are included, while more of these could never be detrimental to the article. The majority of the sources are peer-reviewed articles or books, there are some websites that could be substituted by more peer-reviewed articles. The links work.

Organization and writing quality: The article is written fairly well. It is concise and clear and easy to read for the general reader. There are a couple grammatical errors that need revision but they are minor. The organization of the article is smooth and follows a structured pattern of information. Sections do reflect the major topics of the article and allow the reader to fully understand the topic.

Images and Media: The few images and videos that are embedded in the article do not enhance the understanding of the topic. Some pictures are just science related images rather than adhering to the topic of science communication. More pictures related to the overall topic are needed. Some are old photos that reflect western science and not the minority groups or their influence of science communication. The images are captioned to give the reader an idea of its significance. The images and video are cited for adhering to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The few images that there are visually appealing in that they coincide with the content being discussed. More images should be added, however, especially to the section of science in popular culture and the media.

Talk page discussion: There are only a few discussions happening in the talk section of the article. One of the main conversations is including science ambassadors into the article, while other comments are focused on adding popular communicators that represent the idea of science communication. Some discussions are focused on philosphical andpolitical corrections that should be done or excluded from the article in that it is not related to the topic of science communication. The article is rated as a Start-Class and having mid-importance, the project meaning it needs a lot more work to be done to be rated any higher. It is part of the WikiProject Technology which is interesting.

Overall Impressions: This article is a great start to the topic of science communication but needs a lot more work to be considered finished or to be ranked higher on Wikipedia. The amount of information and accessibility to read the topic is its strength, along the with credible sources it pulls from are a strength for this article. Some sources might need to be updated with more current sources related to the topic and more peer-reviewed sources. The main section that needs more information is the cultural information section which mentions that science communication is mainly a western idea and that other cultures have different ideas about the topic. More discussion and examples should be included to get a larger grasp and idea for the topic. Some basic grammar edits need to be made as well. The article itself is defiantly underdeveloped in that the edits and additions mentioned before would enhance this article to receiving higher rating on Wikipedia. As it is only rated as the Start-Class. But this is a good start as it has a lot of information already there, it just needs to be expanded to include more views from cultures and updated sources.