User:L!ttleW0lf/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?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

One of the key features of Astrobiology is the biological aspect. How does an organism survive the vacuum of space, where did life originate, and how variable is the possibility of life. Astrobiology is a field of study I have become interested in as we continue our exploration into the remainder of the Solar System starting with the Moon and Mars. The techniques and lessons that are taught through the Molecular Genetics course could help derive how new organisms show variability from those on Earth or how explain the possible heritage of life on our planet. As I have chosen a topic that I am interested in, I would like to see how much I know verse what a conglomerate of papers gather together say.

Evaluate the article

(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.)

The article begins with the general definition of what astrobiology encompasses. The following structure of the article includes further details of each interdisciplinary field that plays a vital role in astrobiology. The lead section also includes ongoing current research.

The subdivisions of the elements of astrobiology were shorter summaries of the actual topic with a link to the main articles. The amount of information presented is enough to give the reader a brief overview of the topics discussed. As the study of astrobiology is relatively new, the progresses of studies is ever increasing. There are missions that could be included as the astrobiology community is everchanging and includes new planetary systems with potential life. A majority of the information presented is from the early 2000-2010s. The author(s) do not give an option of the topics discussed in the article as no one field of science is better than the other. The article states facts relative to the topic. There are sections of the article that are longer than other. This includes the larger section of biology and life in the Solar System. I thought that the sections on astrogeology and astrogeology would have been longer considering the ever-growing knowledge of both.

The imaging use throughout the article aids in visualizing the vast amount of knowledge to be gained from astrobiology, The images all had either a citation attached or permission details attached to allow for use. Most of the images are on the right side of the article in the section that they originate from. An example is the Kepler telescope illustration is in the astronomy section of the article and the Curiosity Rover arm is the top image on Mars for the article. Behind the article are sections that allow for further details into the interdisciplinary. The inclusion of addition research and possible discoveries allows the authors to bounce ideas off one another to improve the article. The Talk page is a way for information to be drafted and discussed without it being in the public domain.

I believe that the article was informative and allows for more exploration into the topic. It was important to note that the information that was no detailed was hyperlinked to another article specifically on that subject. With the amount of information in this article, without specificities, it would be difficult for a reader to understand without prior knowledge. The article could use an improvement to include newer data and figures that show what has come of the astrobiology field in the last five years.