User:Bsaffer1/Evaluate an Article

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?
 * Yes, the first sentence includes the definitions of imposter syndrome which is the topic of the article
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not give a description of the articles major sections
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * I do not feel that there is any information not present in the article
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No, it basically defines the term allowing the reader to understand what to expect

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?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does not talk about historically underrepresented populations but it does address the role of gender in imposter syndrome

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?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think there are groups of people that could be discussed as in how imposter syndrome may very based on cultural factors but I wouldn't say there are over or underrepresented viewpoints
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * N/A
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

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?
 * yes the majority of the sources seem to come from journal articles
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes they do reflect available literature on the topic
 * Are the sources current?
 * some of them are current as in 2023
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources seem to come from a diverse spectrum of authors
 * 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.)
 * The majority seem to come from peer-reviewed articles
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

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?
 * yes. I feel like I was able to understand what the article was saying with little confusion
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no errors
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, it is well organized and the sections reflect the major points

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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?
 * I could not find the talk page for this article
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * NA
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * NA

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think this is a good well written article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I think it did a good job of defining terms in a way that was clear
 * How can the article be improved?
 * expanding the topics
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it is slightly below well-developed. I think it has the majority of the information completed