User talk:Jpark111/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? Yes

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

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? No

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? No

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? I think so

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

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

Are the sources current? Yes

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, and I think so

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.) Not that I could find

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I could find

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes

Are images well-captioned? Yes

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not really?

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? - There seems to be a lot of talk on what Louis Sullivan's life was really like in the last 10 years of his life and what he'd looked like.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - Rated B-Class for the following: WikiProjects Illinois, WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Biography. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? - I don't think there is a huge difference.

Overall impressions What is the article's overall status? Comprehensive.

What are the article's strengths? - Relatively comprehensive information both on Louis Sullivan's personal life and professional accomplishments.

How can the article be improved? - Maybe improving the layout of the photos towards the bottom of the article to increase readability and make it seem more organized and unified.

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - I think the article is well developed and thorough but I just wish there were a better layout for the photos.

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 Jpark111 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)