User:EstherM04/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]

Kottayam

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

Kottayam is a city in Kerala, where I am from. I chose this specific article due to my deep cultural ties with the place as well as the rich history behind the city as well. I believe this article is lacking in a lot of information about the city, and bringing more focus on to the city can allow us to learn as well as appreciate the culture surrounding Kottayam. Reading the article there are a lot of things that are discussed, but it is at a very minimal or simple level. All topics have many layers that can be discussed and rich information that is yet to be presented.

Evaluate the article[edit]

Lead Section (SATISFACTORY)

The lead section gives a brief description of Kottayam's location, its geography and climate but fail to explain the significance it holds and is not grammatically accurate. The sentences are short and choppy as well.

Tone and Balance (GOOD)

The article does not show any bias and cites sources in an organized manner.

Sources and References (GOOD)

There are plenty of sources, but they are mostly from other Wikipedia pages, but some from external sites in the external links section. There should be more original sources quoted to make the article more thorough. The references are also mainly from one site named Wayback India. References should be aimed to be from several sources to avoid bias.

Organization and Writing Quality (SATISFACTORY)

Writing quality is okay. Sentences are short and choppy in some places and are not properly organized to provide clear background on the topic.

Images and Media (GOOD)

There is a good amount of images, tables and graphs. However, not all the images do not show a clear, thorough description on its connection to the article.

Talk Page Discussion (SATISFACTORY)

The talk page went over the lack of images, information and validity of links provided. It is included in some Wikipedia projects and rated as low importance.

Overall Impression (GOOD-B)

I think the article definitely needs a lot of improvement in particularly the organization of material, reference to external sources and more descriptive stance on the significance of Kottayam as a city in Kerala. The article does have a good amount of pictures and other visuals. It would be more relevant if the pictures were described in more detail in the article. The article is underdeveloped and in my opinion can be rated as a B.