 | 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 wanted to look for something I didn't really know anything about! I thought it might be fun. Additionally, I've never heard of a group like this which works to improve existing articles based on certain criteria (i.e., articles about women).
Evaluate the article
editLead Section:
The lead section provides a very concise overview of 1000 Women in Religion. There is no information about the article's major sections in the lead. It may be helpful to indicate when this group was started.
Content:
The article does seem to address Wikipedia's equity gaps. 1000 Women in Religion is essentially aimed toward improving the quality of articles about cisgender and transgender women. It seems as though individuals who are a part of 1000 Women in Religion work to edit and create Wikipedia articles about women in academia/scholarly fields, religious disciplines, etc. The article's content is relevant (and includes a link to their website) and appears to be up-tp-date, with virtual meeting times listed for 2022. I think perhaps adding some more information about the history of this group or something along those lines may be beneficial, as the only information about 1000 Women in Religion (i.e., what they do and their goals) is in the summary at the very beginning. I notice that this page links articles they've edited from 2021-2022. Was the group started in 2021 or is this page missing information from prior years?
Tone and Balance:
This article appears neutral. I don't see any wild, biased claims. The article does attempt to persuade the reader, but only in regard to getting involved or reaching out to certain members of 1000 Women in Religion if interested.
Sources and References:
Upon clicking a few links, they seem to work. I don't see any in-text citations at all. However, I do see citations referring to articles that have been edited by this group organized by year.
Organization and Writing Quality:
The article is concise and generally well-written. The information appears to be well-organized. Consider adding another section elaborating on the information found in the lead.
Images and Media:
There are a couple of relevant images at the top of the page, one with a caption. Farther down, there is a figure which indicates the quality and importance of the articles they have worked on.
Talk Page Discussion:
There are no discussions here and no other information.
Overall Impressions:
The article is rated by Wikipedia as C-class (low importance). I believe the lead is quite strong and I enjoy that they added relevant images.
Although the lead is concise and helpful, I think it would be nice to include a longer section farther down which includes more details about 1000 Women in Religion, including how they started, why they are important, etc., beyond what is already covered (which is not much). Therefore, I find the article to be a bit under-developed.