 | 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?
editWhy you have chosen this article to evaluate?
editI chose this article as it is similar to the area of study I wish to pursue. Furthermore, this article contains a lot of jargon and topics both related to the class for this assignment, and my career in the future.
Evaluate the article
editThis is a great, informative article! However, adding a few more sources or information in the Approaches section might make it a bit easier to comprehend. I appreciate the clarification between analysis of and for policy, but since they are separate, I would not label one (or both?) as the "central approach," unless analysis for policy is indeed central.
Furthermore, the Policy Process section has great information, sources, and infographic, but I would suggest at least adding sources to the analysis-centric and meta-policy sections. I am linking a source about metapolicies that even just in the address helps define metapolicies and could be used as a citation/credential for that segment.[1] I have not found any other sources confirming analysis-centric or analycentric as a method, but I would suggest adding a citation if possible.