View source for Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org evaluate article/guide

__NOTOC__
{{ombox|text=

<big>Evaluate an article</big>

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.

* '''[[Wikipedia:Peer_review/An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_the_Air_Pump/archive1|Peer review]]''' of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_the_Air_Pump&oldid=126407440 this article about a famous painting]
}}