User:Ekpace/Evaluate an Article
![]() | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]This article is one that I have edited briefly. I intend to come back to it and fully flesh it out because of how lazily it was thrown together, especially for an album that is relatively important in the canon of such a culturally important performer/artist.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The main issue with this article stems from the sheer lack of information and sources used to create it. That being said, the little information exempts it from criticism regarding tone and bias. It is an extremely informational page, and the bones of a good page are there, but there needs to be a great deal fleshed out. The most glaring issue is the references page. The only reference page used is an Allmusic review, when there are a great deal of resources that could be consulted for making an accurate page for this record. Decca Records has an enormous amount of archival information that could fill in the blanks on some of the gaps in personnel. In addition to this, I made by simply consulting the liner notes of the physical record. In addition to this there are some embedding issues. There are a wide array of composers that are listed with links to their individual pages, but there are a number of important composers listed who do not have their pages linked. A quick google search can prove that some of these individuals in fact have wikipedia pages that can be embedded. It looks like the person who created this page simply copy and pasted what was listed on Allmusic, with little regard to how the composers names and credits were represented. There are also discrepancies on the recording information of the record considering it is a generally known fact that some tracts are recordings from concerts separate than the one that was used for the majority of the record.