User:Sharpchl/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?

Brain rot

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Our class discussion on April 9th inspired me to evaluate the above article about "Brain rot." Whilst looking at Amy Bruckman's reading, we began discussing Italian brain rot. Brain rot matters as it has become a wide streamed phrase by Gen Z and Gen Alpha to describe the current phenom of internet content. My preliminary impression of Brain rot was that it was strictly an internet phenom and had no impact in real life. I was shocked to discover that the term dated back to the the 19th century and is very recognized and relevant.

Evaluate the article

The lead section includes an introductory sentence that clearly defines the brain rot. Although the lead gives a brief description of the origin & usage section, the introductory section fails to mention section two about impact. The lead does not include any information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise and not overly detailed.
The article's content is relevant to brain rot. The content is up-to-date, including a mention of the 2025 Jubilee of the World of Communications. There is not missing content but the content about Australian senator Fatima Payman feels irrelevant. The article on brain rot does not address one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps nor historically underrepresented populations.
The article has a neutral tone. There are no claims that appear heavily biased. There are no viewpoints over or under represented. The article in no way attempts to persuade the reader of any position.
All facts in the article are backed by a secondary source, however I do not think all sources are reliable. I think the citation of The Daily Beast, The Daily Dot, Youtube, and varying news outlets could be questionable. The sources are thorough and current. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. There are better sources as of today that could be used. Yes the links work (confirmed with the link to “Skibidi toilet.”
The article is well written. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized.
The article has one image, the image does enhance understanding of the topic. The image is well captioned. The image adheres to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. Yes, the image is laid out in a visually appealing way.
A significant portion of the conversation is correction of grammatical errors. The article is rated “Start-class.” The article is in the following WikiProjects: Interned culture (mid-importance), Comedy (low-importance). The article discusses brain rot as more pivotal to culture than we had discussed in class.
The article was nominated for deletion on September 5, 2024 however, the decision was to keep the article. A strength of the article is accurately denoting the impact of brain rot. I think adding more information about the topic could improve the article. In my opinion the article is underdeveloped and needs more research.