 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating? edit
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? edit
I chose this article because I live in Arizona, and have been to snowbowl many times. Initial impressions are that while it contains a fairly thorough introduction and history of the ski park, it lacks sufficient citations for much of the history section.
Evaluate the article edit
The lead section provides a succinct and relevant overview of the topic.
It appears that the history of the park is overrepresented in the article, though I would say it is just that the other section(s) are underrepresented. The history is thorough and relevant.
The tone is adequately neutral, and does not over or under represent any of the viewpoints present in the article.
The sources are the most lacking part of the article. There are very few citations for any of the disputes between the Native people of the area and the government of Flagstaff.
The talk page has not been edited since 2013, and is fairly small in scope. Based on my reading of the talk page and article, most of the points in the talk page have been addressed at this point.
The article is graded at "C", which I agree with. The history appears to provide a thorough overview of the park, but it plagued by a lack of citation and sources to back up the content within. The article is lacking in sections beyond its history, with only one other section that is only a paragraph long. The biggest improvements that could be made are first to back up the information stated by the article, and then to create and expand other sections of the article.