User:AshyCatInc./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

Avatar: The Last Airbender

(Provide a link to the article here.)

I was curious on how professional a Wiki can get when researching a very popular children's animation, without adding any opinions. It matters to me because I wanted to learn how to right about something that I enjoy without being bias or opinionated, so I needed an example of that.

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

The lead section is a well typed summary and background intro, describing the creation of the show and the setting, listing the main characters, naming the success received (awards), and all the media published and is upcoming for the franchise without being overloaded. The content is relevant and up-to-date, referencing the release of the Netflix original coming soon with no missing information regarding anything related to the show, itself. There is no persuasion or bias in this article, only a consistent flow of information, except there is a statement that might need a few sources to back it up; "A number of critics have referred to Avatar as one of the greatest animated television series of all time." Though, with the information given, there's no doubt that many critics have that opinion, it might be better off with some sources to a critic's review. The article is organized by sections based on what the relation is to the show, like ratings, related medias, influence and themes, and episodes. There is no grammatical errors and it is easy to read and follow. There are very little images in this article, which I think could have been useful for presenting what the characters look like, but there are separate Wikis for that, so I don't think it affects this one that much. This is primarily about the show, itself, so it passes. The Avatar: The Last Airbender Wiki has been published and edited since 2005, so there is very little for improvement unless something new comes up. The last edit was on January 21st, 2021, so there are some still in the process of keeping it up-to-date. I think this is a well organized article.

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)