User:Patty24/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?

LGBT rights in the Middle East

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it was among the list of articles assigned to us by my professor. Although there were many articles on the list, I chose this one because I'm interested in the history, lives and rights of LGBT people all over the world including in the Middle East. This article matters because we should be aware of the rights of the LBGT community in the Middle East. It's an informative article that teach people around the world what rights people have and don't have. I was unimpressed by the article, I thought that it would have more information which needs to be rectified. I think that many changes can be made to the article to improve the lack of information.

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.)

The lead section of the article is lacking in information, I think more detail needs to be added to signal to the reader what is going to be discussed throughout the article. When reading the article, I found a few grammatical errors which shouldn't be there. There is also a lot of focus on same sex relations between men and not enough discussion on same sex relationships between women. Due to this, the article is only providing a specific viewpoint and not giving the reader more information on the experiences of other marginalized LGBT groups in the Middle East. The is overrepresentation of men and underrepresentation of women and other LGBT groups in the Middle East. The article does have a neutral tone which is very important and there aren't any personal opinions published in the article. There is a large number of references which are cited correctly and have working links attached to them. However, there aren't enough articles on the bibliography section. The history section is also very extensive and the content is relevant to the topic being discussed. The article only mentions Christianity once and even though a majority of people practice Islam in these countries there are countries with significant Christian and Jewish populations. The Laws section is lacking information and needs an introduction and new information. All that is included in this section is a table that discusses some of the laws and whether being homosexual, transgender and/or nonbinary is legal. More information needs to be added to the beginning of the section instead of just having the table. There isn't enough images that are relevant to the topic. There are only two images throughout the page, and I think that more should be added. The section discussing public opinions doesn't have enough information and I'm sure there is more up to date information that can be added to that section. The article is well written and easy to understand and it is also broken into different sections that are relevant to the article.