User:Kaimcamc/Evaluate an Article

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?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it 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?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly 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

Which article are you evaluating?

BeReal

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article to evaluate because it has become a very popular app among a lot of people. Along with it being popular, it is a new form of communication and it allows its users to share about their day with two pictures, preferably at the time of the notification. I think it is a very interesting way of communicating and I find the app to be a fun way to share about your everyday life with your friends and family. I think looking at the newest and most popular forms of social media and communication through technology is important because it allows us to expand our knowledge.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section:

The lead sentence includes the general information for what BeReal is and when it was released. The first paragraph provides the basic information about the developers, when the app was released, and when it gained popularity. The lead section does not include an overview of the article, but it does include the basics of the app and explains what the main feature is and what its users do on the app. Overall, the lead is concise and gives the basic information that any reader would need to understand what the app BeReal is and what it entails.

Content:

Overall, the content of this article is relevant to the topic of the app BeReal. The article is up to date with the current status of BeReal and provides the history of the app along with the features, which provides good information for the reader to understand what the app is and what it is used for. The reception section of the article seems to be a critique of the app and provides information on what people are saying and their opinions about the app. This section provides similar apps and ideas to compare the app to, but needs more information about the user's thoughts and opinions about the app. The features section provides a concise, but detailed overview of the app and its features, but in that section there is information on comparison to other social media apps, which might need to be in its own section, not in the features.

Tone and Balance:

The article is written from a neutral view. It provides the app overview, the positive feedback from users, along with some negative feedback and suggestions that have been provided. In the reception section there seems to be some more negative opinions from other sources about the app and it questions the authenticity of the "late" posts on the app and provides criticism about the ability to post outside of the two minute window. The tone of the writing is not necessarily negative from the author, more from the sources that were used.

Sources and References:

Information about the app is backed up through 29 different sources. The quality of the sources range from online websites to news websites to some online blogs. The sources are current and range within the lifespan of the app. Information about the app was correct information retrieved from the sources and the online websites were also used to gain insight from the app users. These sources are not peer-reviewed academic journal sources, but because of the topic of the article, that is not surprising. The sources provide more current information about the app and its users. The links of the sources work.

Organization and Writing Quality:

This article is well written. It is concise and to the point, while providing the needed information to understand the app and what the users of the app do. There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed. Overall, it is organized well.

Images and Media:

This article does not provide any images or media, besides the picture of the BeReal app. A few images of the app when it is opened and an example of what it would look like to a user may provide an even better understanding to the reader about the dynamics of the app and help visualize using it.

Talk Page Discussion:

The talk page of this article does not have a lot of conversations. It is mostly filled with the initial creation conversation about the page and the topic, along with some edits and critiques. This article is rated start-class, low-importance on WikiProject Apps, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Companies.

Overall Impressions:

The status of this article would be ranked low importance and start class according to WikiProjects. The strengths of this article include the concise writing and information about the app, but there is still some more information that could help expand the article. Information on the "guidelines" of the app may be beneficial to the article, along with some more information from the creators and developers. Expansion on the apps claim of "authenticity" would be interesting and the debate on the apps late posting could help better the article. Overall, the article has a great start to it, especially for it being a starting article. It has quality writing and information, and more expansion on some of the information that is provided in the article will help improve its overall quality.