User:Ryanshie/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?

G0v

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I am Taiwanese, and I wanted to learn about civic technologies used between the government and the people in Taiwan.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead: Lead is concise, gives a general idea of what the article will be about, and also introduces the main subjects the article will cover.
Content: The content is relevant, non-biased. Info is up to date, and is not missing any content.
Tone and balance: A neutral view, does not include any bias or opinions in the article.
Sources: There are multiple sources, and a wide variety of inputs. However, there are some links that do not work, and there is one link that google found unsafe.
Organization and writing quality: Article was easy to read, it delivered information well without being overly complicated. The article is well organized and does not contain any spelling or grammatical errors.
Images and media: No images or media in the article, could potentially be improved by adding an image of the logo of the movement.
Talk page: There are no other conversations. However, this article was once nominated for deletion, but that was rejected. It is part of Wikiproject Taiwan, and also Wikiproject Internet culture.
Overall:
- Status: Article is well written and delivers information in a concise, unbiased way. The article is well organized, following the timeline of the events that happened on this subject.
- Strengths: Organized well, and it also expands into other topics related to the article towards the end for people looking for more information.
- Improvement: I feel that some images or media could be used to improve the quality of the article, and give readers a better idea of what the article is about at first glance.
- Completeness: I would say that it is well written, but it could still use some additions to the article such as images and more information about the other branches of the g0v project.

This article begins with a clear and easy to understand lead, which has a concise introduction that gives the reader a general idea of what the article is about. It also introduces subjects within the article that the page will cover. The reader is provided with clear and non-biased information about the g0v movement and includes up to date information. The article is easy to read and comprehend while also providing a lot of information on the g0v project and maintaining a neutral view on the subject. The citations of the article mostly work, however, there are a few links that no longer exist. At first glance, it is hard to tell what the article is exactly about. I feel that adding an image of the logo of the project or some sort of media relating to the g0v project would improve the article. Overall, while this article could use some improvement, it has a solid and unbiased view on the content covered, and relays information to the reader well.