User:Zerodee/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?

Astroecology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article, because the name was very intriguing to me! I have not learned much about how astronomy and ecology relate, so I was interested to read the article.

Evaluate the article

The lead starts off a little vague, however it gets more detailed over the next few sentences. It was a little confusing to read, so I think the actual sentences could be written better. The content of the article does relate to the topic, and they provide multiple sources of evidence. However, the tone and balance are off in this article. It felt like I was reading an essay in which the author was trying to persuade me to believe that Astroecology is a real thing. The articles are supposed to be information that is presented in a neutral way, and this article does not do that to me. For the sources, many of them were dated, so they were from before the year 2000. Most of the sources came from the 1990s or before. Some of the sources went back to the 1970s. There were a few sources from after the year 2000, and the most recent sources was 2010. For the organization and quality of the article, I think the organization is pretty good. It has different sections, and they are all labelled. However, the quality of writing is not great. It was difficult to read, and I still feel confused about the topic after reading the article. There are no images with this article. It would have been nice to see at least one image, even it were a graph or something. Images can make the article more engaging to the reader, and images can also provide some more information on the topic. On the talk page, other people are discussing issues with the references. The article mostly uses only a few references for most of the information. The sources need to be checked further, and more sources will possibly need to be found. I would say that this article not well developed, and it could use some work. The topic seems so interesting, however the writing style and sources issues that are present in this article are a problem. There are some strengths for this article in that the topic is interesting and there are a few sources that relate to it, however the article could be improved with more reliable sources and some editing to the writing.