 | 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 it because I'm interested in the history of travel and Egyptology in the last 19th century. I know a little about Marianne Brocklehurst and her work and influence in Egyptology and I think her article is notable. There is also a lot of verifiable information out there.
Evaluate the article edit
The lead section is really short. I think with some more research, there could be more to lead into her life and work.
The content of the article is relevant and, generally, up to date. The tone is neutral. But there is a lot missing about her travel in Egypt, not to mention her personal life. . There's a diary that has been published. Why isn't there more in the article about her trip? The organization make sense (there isn't much there to organize). The media are 2 photos. I would love to see a side-bar like other biographical articles have.
There isn't anything on the talk page except that this is a start-class article of low importance. I don't know that we can know her importance until we get more information about her. I'd like to know more about her collection of antiquities to the museum in Macclesfield. I would also like to find more media to add to the article.