User:Anonquokka/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?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

History of cosmetics - Wikipedia

Chinese cuisine

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.)

The article provides a general overview about the evolution of cosmetics and its used throughout various parts of the world. As someone who is interested in contemporary aspects of society, make-up has played a role in shaping culture. While cosmetics is merely a supplemental, the product has been used throughout history with various ingredients that is attached to beauty and general fashion. While browsing the article, it looks quite clunky and maybe some organization is needed. Another thing to consider is the lack of male involvement with cosmetic as there were cases of men using the product for various reasons.

Alternatively, Chinese cuisine was also added as it provides general information. The organization is pretty good, however, there are some minor information that needs to be added. There is not much information about how much the Columbian exchange has generally shaped the cuisine and was instead pushed to the specific cuisine.

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.)

According to the talk page of the article, there were some citation issues as well as a lack of information on certain topics. One suggestion was to combine the article with a larger article called "cosmetic" because of how little available information there is. Other issues include the inaccuracy on cosmetic surgery being seen as recent, but the editor's suggestion was not included into the article. Looking at organization, there is a lot of missing information as it predominantly focused on Europe and the United States. While it does mention Asia and the Middle East and Africa, the former outweighs in available information.

Inspecting the images, there is not much visualization as one were to scroll into the 20th century. Considering the increasing use of cosmetics in the period and the 21st, it is strange to not include photos possible due to copyright. Also, African cosmetics does not have any pictures outside of one from ancient Egypt.

Looking at the writing, it seems like it was written more as an essay than an informative document as seen in the writing style. As mentioned earlier, the organization seems dense, and this will deter potential readers.

From seeing the sources, they appear to be plausible, but it seems like the article heavily relied on one source "Angelolou". There is a chance that there are more sources on the topic especially for regions not in Europe and the United States. Speaking of that, Latin America is not mentioned throughout the article which should be added.