User:Swiftie198922/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?

Eve Babitz

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

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

I chose to evaluate this article because I like Eve Babitz and know enough about her to know whether the article is generally accurate or not. This article matters because Eve Babitz matters! My first impression of the article was that it gave a pretty good overview of Babitz, although lacking some detail.

Evaluate the article

The lead for this article is one sentence long but effective in identifying who Babitz was and what she was known for. The content of the article is relevant and clear although a more detailed description of the themes and topics of her books would improve the article. Interestingly, her relationship with Joan Didion was only briefly referenced, even though it is the subject of a new book by Lili Anolik who has published several (non-scholarly) articles and a biography about Babitz. The tone of this article is neutral and unbiased. The article is well-cited considering the limited amount of secondary literature on Babitz. Sources include articles by Anolik, interviews of Babitz, articles about her work published in The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Paris Review, etc, and of course her own work. The organization and writing quality of the article is good but could use a little more detail. For example, more could be said about Babitz's early life and education which she discusses extensively in her work. The article includes one (cropped) image of Babitz taken in 1959 at the age of 16. Although there are not a huge amount of pictures of Babitz online, there are certainly better options than the one included. A better alternative might be the portrait of her by Annie Leibovitz which serves as the cover of the New York Review of Books edition of Eve's Hollywood. There are three posts on the talk page of the article. The two most recent posts are notifications about modified external links and the earliest post was about a minor correction. My overall impression of the article is favourable (there are no major errors or inaccuracies) but it could certainly be improved with a little more detail and more effective images. The article is rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, which is not very good.