User:TaylorxChase/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?

Talk:Eugenics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this articile because we are discussing this topic in my Child Psychology class here at UNO. According to this Wikipedia article, 'Eugenics' is defined as "a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population." This definition also aligns with the discussion we had in class with Professor Chris Harshaw. The discussion of Eugenics matters because there are many different opinions on the topic. This is due to the fact that in order to apply Eugenics to a human population, reproduction would need to be rearranged within a group and allow desirable heritable characteristics to occur. Some people believe that this could cause discrimination within the human population. This article actually stuck out to me because as I was reading it, I encountered a section where the editors got into a bit of a "editing war". Not sure if it can really be called this, but I do not have a better term to offer. It appears that some editiors within this article have some disagreements as to what is being discussed in the article. There also seemed to be "personal attacks" the had been removed and there is a discussion of the "use of pronouns" towards the end of the article. It just makes me wonder why the editors chose this topic to discuss if they felt like they were not on the same page in regards to the issue? Then again, we are supposed to be neutral on Wikipedia. However, the conversation seems like the editors were perhaps 'picking sides'.

Evaluate the article

I would like to begin my evaluation of this article by saying that it is entirely all over the place and just bad. There is nothing interesting or eye catching in regards to the lead section. Judging by the Talk Page portion of this article, it seems that there may have even been a disagreement on to what the first sentence of the article should be. The editors could not get themselves on the same page when writing this article. It is short and only goes as far as defining what Eugenics is. There is no real or concrete information in this article that would help someone understand or study Eugenics. On top of the content being scarce, the editors thought it more important to brawl over what information should be in the article. They also took it upon themselves to have a bickering match about the use of pronouns and "being called out". The use of sources and references is shot-y, images and media are no where to be seen, organization and writing quality are poor, and the Talk Page is embarassing to read. My overall impression of this article is that it is the perfect example of what NOT to do on Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia thought the article was bad because they de-listed it.