User:Normalusername123

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? It's a little vague and confusing
• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Maybe a bit 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? Yes
• Is the content up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

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? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Some of the application types have significantly less information than others. Only two religions are mentioned under the "religion" section.
• Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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? No. Many sections are missing sources altogether.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Some of them are. Older sources appear to refer primarily to history and theory. Some updated sources could be helpful.
• 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.) I don't think so. The sources appear to be primarily from academic books and journals.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Most did. One I clicked on did not.

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? Yes
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not that I noticed
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. Could have been included more.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Lots of people find the article to be a bit confusing, dense, and difficult to read.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part of WikiProjects Philosophy and WikiProjects Linguistics. It has a message at the top saying it may be too technical for many readers.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I would say Wikipedia talks about it from a broad range of perspectives and disciplines, as opposed to just linguistics.

Overall impressions

• What is the article's overall status? While it is well written, it is overly technical and lacks proper citations in spots. It also has some sections that are significantly underdeveloped compared to others.
• What are the article's strengths? It is very exhaustive. I don't know that there were necessarily be any sections to add.
• How can the article be improved? Simplifying the language for a lay audience, adding citations where needed, and expanding upon underdeveloped sections.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say semi-poorly developed, as it is not balanced throughout. Beyond that, though, it is well-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