User:LodFod/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?

Secondary market offering

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

We chose this article because we found it to exemplify the typical (informationally) underfunded article, obviously written by an expert contributor, yet without containing enough information to reliably cite as peer-reviewed or a collaborative measure.

Evaluate the article

This article is very short and concise but at the same time is straightforward and accurate. Hence, it doesn't have enough content to justify any major sectional breakdowns. The article coherently explains the process of how a secondary market offering works and how this type of offering differs to other market offerings such as a follow-on-offering. Although the information is accurate and coherent, it is relatively vague and open ended. Readers who are not familiar with market offerings and the business ecosystem might find this article confusing. Although the authors did provide links to other key terms and important information, they could improve this article by diving deeper into the roots of a secondary market offering, the steps this process requires and the implications for all parties involved.

Furthermore, the article's tone is neutral, making it good and reliable for a Wikipedia article. The authors are neither proposing nor leaning towards any point of view and there is no bias within the information provided. The article is very straightforward, and although in some times it might suggest a certain party does not benefit (eg: “ The proceeds from the sale of the securities do not benefit the issuing company in any way”) This statement is not biased within context, as the authors are just providing accurate information and answering a common question many individuals might have.

Moving on towards media, the article contains no pictures, though for such a topic there may not be relevant pictures to include, anyway. In regards to references, the article does provide a good amount of links to other relevant articles, which provides the reader with different perspectives and a clear understanding about technical terminology. Nevertheless, the authors lack a full list of references and I will argue that their article should have more direct citation which will make it more reliable and trustworthy. Maybe even using examples of real life scenarios and cases where secondary market offerings have occurred, might be a good idea to show some proof and accurate citations.  

The talk page of the article is very interesting as in this section the authors are actually bringing up some well known sources, such as Investopedia, and using real life cases, such as one with Google, to prove certain points of view and provide more accuracy and detail to this topic. The main dispute, surrounding a distinction between follow-on vs. secondary offerings, and the merger of the related page, seems to have been resolved by adding a clause distinguishing the two types of offering. It's clear that there are knowledgeable people writing the article, however it must be said that adding more information would improve it significantly.