User:Dano'sullivan/How to assess an article

[edit] HOW TO ASSESS AN ARTICLE

These guidelines might be helpful in the assessment of Featured Article Candidates.

To make an assessment, first read the article right through to the end, including notes and references. Then take the following headings in turn and grade the article on a scale of 0 to 5 for each heading. This gives a possible maximum of 50. However, if one or more of the headings seem to you inappropriate for a particular article, or you find it impossible to judge, then leave it or them out completely. For example, if you felt that images would have been quite impossible or irrelevant for a particular article to include – then leave out this assessment and adjust the maximum accordingly. So if this article had scored 20 out of 45, multiplying this fraction by 50, adjusts its score to 22 out of 50. This brings it into line with other articles you might assess. Tip: Use the full range of points. Don’t hesitate to award a 5 when appropriate, or a 0 in dire cases.

• 1. length and structure

Is the article of appropriate length, considering its importance? Look for gaps in the coverage, or conversely unnecessary or trivial details. Is the lead section clear and interesting? It should be a hook to make you want to read the rest. Are the other sections in logical order, or do they jump around? For many historical items, including biographies, a chronological order might be appropriate, but there may be compelling reasons for varying this. For example, a person may have been involved in several activities which need to be kept separate, even if this cuts across the chronology. Determine whether there is reasonable continuity between one section and the next. Lack of logical order and continuity are typical faults of a work composed by numerous authors.

• 2. images

Images, and being able to enlarge them by clicking onto them, should be among the advantages of an on-line encyclopedia. Are there suitable and interesting illustrations here (even video or soundtrack)? Do the images contribute to the understanding or interest of the article? Are they informatively captioned, and do the captions explain where they came from? One has to make allowances for the fact that often the best images are not available to Wikipedia because of copyright.

• 3. quotes

Quotations, either as primary source material, i.e. contemporary with the person or event being discussed, or secondary, by later commentators or historians, tend to make an article more authentic and readable. Are there any? They might be in separate boxes or just inserted in the text. But are there too many, or are they unnecessarily long? Again, as with images, is it clear who said them and where they came from?

• 4. grammar and style

Wikipedia, with its thousands of editors, is good at winnowing out bad grammar, but even so you may notice mistakes. Typical are sentences without main verbs, participles that do not agree with the subject of the sentence (e.g. “Hating to make mistakes, these articles are carefully written”.), and too few, or too many, commas. There might even be spelling errors in spite of all the spell checks. If you find anything like this, mark it down. Style is perhaps harder to assess, but a good indicator of the quality of the article. The important thing is clarity. There should be no sentences or phrases which you have to read several times to understand, and none whose meaning is ambiguous. The style should also be succinct. Mark down unnecessary long-windedness or over-elaboration. On the other hand, with reference to authorship by many hands as mentioned above, the most likely fault will probably be stylistic mediocrity and dullness. Typical of a pedestrian style are short sentences, each much like the one before. Look for some variety in sentence length, and for the sophisticated use of subordinate clauses. Also look for elegance, even wit, in the language of the article, and reward it.

• 5. generalisation and neutrality

A good article will not be afraid to generalise or draw conclusions about the significance of its theme, or of sub-topics within the theme. It might also, for instance, make general comparisons with items or people outside the scope of the article, or link up two things which seemed before to be quite separate. Take notice of any remark which casts unexpected light on the whole subject. Definite opinions are more interesting than bland, compromise statements. Most generalisations will probably be found in the lead section or the final section, though not necessarily. Interesting generalizations, however, often run the risk of bias. Wikipedia stresses that articles should always have a neutral point of view (NPoV), but of course this is one of the hardest things to achieve, even when dealing with the distant past. It is also quite hard to assess, especially if one is new to the subject concerned. Look out for statements that seem to reflect a nationalist or religious (or anti-religious) or feminist (or anti-feminist) point of view. The article’s Discussion page may give a clue about possible bias.

• 6. discrepancies, repetition and gaps

Look out for any of these. Discrepancies (e.g. different dates given for the same event) and repetition of points made are typical faults of an article which has been constructed by several authors at different times. A gap is when you are left feeling short-changed, either because something you vaguely knew about and was expecting in the article has not come up, or because something potentially interesting and significant is mentioned, but not followed up. You are suddenly told, for instance, that towards the end of his life an important author or politician started taking drugs, converted to another faith, or tried to hang himself, but then no more is said. But why did he, and how did it affect his work?

• 7. links & internet references

One great advantage that a vast site like Wikipedia obviously has is being able to refer the reader to other parts of itself. These links are in blue, and they are usually numerous as they can easily be made by (ro)bots. Make sure your article has links for any names or facts which might need explaining. Links to ‘stubs’, which are potential articles, are likely to be less useful, and links in red, which are to articles yet to be written, not at all useful. Check, also, any footnote numbers inserted in the text which are supposed either to tell you where a particular fact came from, or to provide some further explanation. Finally, check out some of the internet references listed at the end of the article to see whether these websites are still active, and are helpful.

• 8. references to print sources

Most editors of Wikipedia are likely to be more at home with the internet than with printed material. Nevertheless, I think it important that if possible there should also be references to recently published books or articles, because these tend to be more fixed and permanent than internet sources. Wikipedia ought to be a gateway to the wider intellectual world. By recent I mean the last ten or fifteen years. (Some may be in a ‘Further reading’ section.) Book references should preferably give publisher, place and date of publication, and/or ISBN number. Articles should have the name of the journal and the date and volume number.

• 9. stability

Here, the suggestion is that you click on the ‘History’ and ‘Discussion’ links at the top of your article. ‘History’ lists recent changes, and ‘Discussion’ shows what parts of the article involved disagreements by different editors. Awarding the points here is a matter of fine judgement. On the one hand, perhaps the more discussion there has been, and the more editors involved in that discussion, the better for the article. But on the other hand, evidence of one-sided points of view or ‘edit wars’, especially if they seem to be still going on at the time of viewing, implies instability. In other words, you might find the article has changed again the next time you access it.

• 10. overall

You now have up to 5 extra points to distribute as you see fit. Consider how far you have found the article interesting, and useful for your own purposes. There may be warnings in boxes at the top of the article that it does not yet conform to Wikipedia standards. They might say, for instance, that this article may not have a neutral point of view, or that it lacks references or suitable links. If so, take this into consideration. Sum up the article’s good and bad points.

I'd be very interested in any feedback about these suggestions - which are largely aimed at people who, like myself, are fairly new to Wikipedia. Here are two Featured Articles (chosen at random) which I have assessed using the above system:

ASSESSMENTS

ARTICLE I: Elias Ashmole

• 1. length and structure

I thought at first it was a reasonable length, but having checked out some of the references given, e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography and the newer Oxford DNB, both of which are fuller, I now think it’s a bit short. Apparently Ashmole’s ‘autobiographical and historical notes’, published in 1967, are in 5 volumes! As for structure, the lead section is clear and interesting. Other sections are partly in chronological order, with significant departures, e.g. ‘Freemason’ takes him to near the end of his life. ‘Marriage’ is only about his first marriage of three. Why are alchemy and the Tradescants put together? Generally, the structure seems a trifle arbitrary. - 3/5 -

• 2. images

Good - three portraits and two books illustrated. But was it necessary to have a portrait by John Riley and another portrait ‘after the portrait by John Riley’? And should we not be told where the originals of all these portraits are? What about an image of his coat of arms instead of merely describing it? - 4/5 -

• 3. quotes

A rather narrow and odd selection. There are 5 quotes from his diary all packed into the short ‘Freemason’ paragraph, and no others at all unless one counts the descriptions of his two coats of arms. There is nothing from contemporaries or historians. Both the diary quotes and the heraldry quotes are unsourced. - 2/5 -

• 4. grammar and style

No particular faults noted. Good use of commas, a scattering of colons and semi-colons – and even one (appropriate) dash in the final text paragraph. The style is very adequate, always clear and quite sophisticated with good variation in sentence length. - 5/5 -

• 5. generalisation and neutrality

Good in lead para, otherwise rather short on generalisation. Some, on Ashmole’s character, come at the end, but are lifted from another encyclopedia article. It might have been better if this article had the courage of its own convictions. Concerning bias, this is hardly a subject in which one would expect to find it – unless possibly an enthusiast for alchemy or astrology were involved in the editing. As far as I can tell a neutral point of view is expressed throughout. - 3/5 -

• 6. discrepancies, repetition and gaps

Nothing in particular noted for the two former. There are one or two items lacking explanation. For example, ‘He then met a scholar known as Tyler Parott who helped him travel the world’ (Freemason para). One would like to know more about this world travel and its implications. Also, what, if anything, is the connection between EA’s freemasonry and the other topics? Another point: Arthur Dee and John Dee are both mentioned as clearly important to Ashmole, but we are not told they were father and son. - 4/5 -

• 7. links and internal references

The links seem mostly adequate. Do we need bracketed explanations of ‘excise commissioners’ and ‘philosopher’s stone’? Surely the internal links for these suffice. Except that the ‘excise’ link leads to an article about specifically American excise commissioners. And what about ‘Commissioner of Surinam’ (Restoration para)? That does need a link or explanation. The ‘notes’ are unsatisfactory. There are only two. The first [1] leads to a genealogy site, to prove the alternative spellings of Ashmole. The second [2] (at the end of the Alchemy para) leads to The Economist, a log-in site, where I was unable to locate the author of the quote. Surely, more footnotes were needed to substantiate other statements. The references labelled ‘External Links’ were satisfactory, except that I failed to access two of them – the Sir Thomas Browne letters and the Asmolean Museum. - 3/5 -

• 8. references to print sources

I thought these were inadequate since four were to other encyclopedia articles, two others were only about EA being an early mason, one was just a list of officials, and another was a repeat of the (electronic) link to the Ashmolean Museum. The only book mentioned (by Churton) is clearly a popular treatment, being described by its author as a ‘photo-biography’. What about cultural histories of the period, or the five volumes of EA’s own writings and diary which I mentioned above? - 1/5 -

• 9. stability

The discussion and history pages of this article do not reveal any particular obsessions or edit wars. Since this article has been granted ‘Favoured Article’ status by Wikipedia I conclude that it is fairly stable – until someone decides to improve it with more information. - 5/5 -

• 10. overall

Personally, I did find this article interesting, partly because I didn’t know much about EA to start with. It was also well edited and clear. However, I do now think some aspects of his life could have received fuller treatment, possibly through better use of his diary and other papers which have been extensively published and hence are not merely lurking in some dusty archive. However, feeling generous I will award it - 4/5 -

                                        TOTAL:    34 out of 50'                                                   
 

• ARTICLE II: Elgin Marbles

• 1. length and structure

The article is rather too brief, given the gaps noted below. Not a particularly effective structure, I felt. A suitable structure is difficult in a topic when there is background, historical narrative and also contemporary debate to fit in. The lead section contained too much detail (e.g. about the firman). ‘Description’ and ‘Interpretation’ should perhaps have come first, before ‘Legality’. Some items were in the wrong paragraphs, e.g. ‘the studio of Phidias’ which should be in ‘Description’. - 1/5 -

• 2. images

The three images of the marbles and the one of the room were effective. The captions failed to say where they were from – presumably the British Museum. I didn’t understand what ‘Selene Horse (3d alt)’ under the horse picture meant. There could have been a portrait of Elgin and also a plan of the Parthenon, explaining where the marbles actually came from. - 3/5 -

• 3. quotes

The one towards the beginning from a contemporary lawyer was useful. I particularly liked the extract from Byron’s poem. Perhaps three quotes from contemporary critics was excessive. - 3/5 -

• 4. grammar and style

Quite a lot of clumsy expression that detracts from the flow. The long sentence starting ‘As such’ in the ‘Description’ para is awkward. Do ‘frieze’ and ‘marbles’ have capitals or not? Is ‘reposit’ a word (3rd line of ‘Greek claim’ paragraph)? The sentence starting ‘As part of’ (same para, 7th line) doesn’t make sense. There is a redundant ‘were’ (1st line, 2nd para of ‘Damage to the marbles’). ‘Ardent refusal’ (near the end of the ‘British Museum’ para) sounds odd. In the same sentence, did the MORI poll really discuss a previous opinion poll? - 2/5 -

• 5. generalisation and neutrality

In the first paragraph it is questioned whether Elgin had a legal right to take the marbles; whether Britain is entitled to keep them is discussed later on (‘British Museum’ para). Surely some summing-up is needed. The whole article produces a rather fragmented impression. I also felt it was rather one-sided. As a recent contributor to the Discussion page says, ‘As the article stands one could be forgiven for coming away with the impression that the moral case for repatriation is unassailable’. This criticism is confirmed by the list of ‘Campaigning websites’ at the end. - 1/5 -

• 6. discrepancies, repetition and gaps

Examples can be found of all of these. Were the marbles placed in the Duveen gallery in 1936 (1st para) or in 1939 (end of ‘Criticism’ para)? Do nine other museums hold some marbles (‘Interpretation’ para), or are there only seven (list of museums at the end)? On repetition, ‘advantage’ was taken by Elgin twice in the first para. In the ‘Other displaced Parthenon art’ para, the point about Elgin not being the only culprit is repeated. And there are many ‘gaps’, e.g. about the meaning of the frieze (‘Considerable debate’ – but what debate?). More is needed, I felt, on Elgin, his behaviour and motives. He took wax casts – what happened to them? And what position did he hold when he took the marbles? We are told he was ‘a representative of our country’, but also that he had ceased to be ambassador three years earlier, in 1803 (1st para). - 1/5 -

• 7. links and internet references

Architectural and other obscure terms are well explained by internal links (except ‘Pentelicon marble’ which could have a link). The two references to David Rudenstine (Legality para) should be replaced by one to his own writing, of which there are several on the net. Otherwise, the references are adequate, except that overall they are biased towards the Greek position (see above). The reference under ‘External links’ does support the British Museum’s position, but is the sole entry under this heading. - 3/5 -

• 8. references to print sources

A reasonable and up-to-date selection of ‘Further reading’, although only one ISBN number is given. - 4/5 -

• 9. stability

The article appears stable, without edit wars. On the Discussion page there was some argument as to whether the Elgin marbles should not rather be called the Parthenon marbles since Elgin’s claim to them was flawed. Also whether he removed most of the marbles from the ground or ripped them off the temple. These issues, however, were amicably settled. - 5/5 -

• 10. overall

Many interesting points. I followed the two sides of the argument, although I thought the article rather biassed. I liked the quote from Byron. More could have been said about Lord Elgin. Both structure and style had their faults. - 2/5 -

• TOTAL 25 out of 50

I'd be grateful for comments.