User:StephMSU/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]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Schor
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because he is the mayor of Lansing which is relevant to where I live.
Evaluate the article
[edit]I think the lead section is concise and relevant. The first sentence is a good introduction of the article without being overly detailed. The introduction does not have any information that is not in the article.
The content of this article is good and tells me a lot about the mayors work history. However I would like to know more about his time as mayor since he has been in office for four years now, and there is relatively little information about his time in office. Information about his policies and what his office has done would be helpful information to be included.
The tone of the article is very neutral, I don't believe it has been swayed in favor of any group or policy.
The Organization of the page is chronological and is very clear. I like the way the information is formatted and it creates a really good flow. The language is easy to read and I did not notice any grammatical errors.
There is only one picture on the page and it has a caption but it does not say when the photo was taken. The image is laid out in an appealing way. It appears to be adhering to Wikipedias copy write policies.