User:Jwieb01/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?

St. Peter, Minnesota

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to evaluate this article because I am from Saint Peter, MN and I was curious what wikipedia had on my hometown. Its important to me because its where I grew up and where a lot of people that I care about live.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section
- Intro Sentence: There is an intro sentence that clearly states what Saint Peter is and where it is.
- Descriptions of Major Sections: After the lead section there is no description of other major sections. The lead just states where Saint Peter is, and what it is close to. It mentions Gustavus Adolphus College and what major roads that are connected to the town. I think that the lead section could have more details without making it seem too specific.
Content
- All the content is very relevant, touching on Saint Peters demographic, history, important people, events, and important places in the town. such as Gustavus, The Mental hospital, and
- Overall the content is a few years behind in the consensus and the crime statistics. They don't have any information on the high school that was built in 2016, or the Cox House, which is an old house turned museum that the first mayor of Saint Peter lived in but everything else seems up to date and belongs there.
- I believe that this article addresses an equity gap. It talks about the Treaty of Traverse Des Sioux and how the promise to The Dakota was not kept which resulted in The Dakota War of 1862.
Tone and Balance
- This article is neutral, it doesn't seem to be swayed one way or another. All sections state facts and don't have a bias. All the sections give a good amount of information about the topic and there was no minority due to this being a town.

Sources and References
- Sources used on this article are reliable, with a lot of information coming from the United States Census Bureau and a couple other sites such as the National Association of Counties, and the Saint Peter official website. Most of the sources are current, some can be updated. Also many of the links are from government sources so they do not have an author.
- Some of the facts and people that are mentioned don't have links connected to them and the sources are not very diverse.
Organization and Writing Quality
- The article is put into sections that are titled at the top of each one. I think that some of the sections could be broken down into smaller ones but its not necessary. I did not find any grammatical errors or spelling error but I could have missed some. A lot of the sentences in the census were very long and could have been split up, and I think that some of the paragraphs could have been split up to make it easier for the reader. The over all quality of writing is good just a few minor changes would be helpful and enhance this article.
Images and Media
- The article includes pictures but I do not think they enhance the article very well. The pictures are very small and the article could benefit from a couple more pictures. The pictures are also not laid out in a super visually appealing way, they are all just to the right side of the page. However the pictures that are included have good captions with them and tell the reader what the picture is. from what I see all the pictures adhere with the wikipedia copyright regulations.
Talk Page Discussion
- There are a couple things on the talk page. There are a couple conversations about a person, a conversation about getting a picture, and a conversation about adding section about how Saint Peter was supposed to be the capitol of Minnesota.
- The article has a C-class rating which means it meets certain criteria but not enough to get a B-class rating.
Overall
- If you are looking for information on Saint Peter, MN then this would be a good source to use. This article does a good job of giving the reader a lot of key information about Saint Peter.
- To improve this article I think that the structure or layout could be improved to make it a little easier to read, and I think that the addition of a few pictures and a few more citations would help a lot.
- I think that this article is a little undeveloped, it has good information however I think that more could be added and some of the structure could be improved.

(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.)