User:Tripleahg/article quality
From the Using Wikipedia brochure:
[edit]Evaluating the quality of an article
[edit]The quality of Wikipedia articles varies widely; many are very good, but some lack depth and clarity, or contain bias, or are out of date. So, how can you quickly assess the general quality of an article? There are two main ways:
1. Check for the elements of good articles
2. Look for common signs of poor quality
Elements of good articles:
There are five elements that all good articles and Featured articles share. These elements are: a clear structure, balance between aspects, a lead section that is easy to understand and gives a good overview, neutral content and reliable sources.
The structure is clear. It includes several headers and subheaders, images and diagrams at appropriate places, and appendices and footnotes in the end. For most articles, the content is organized chronologically, or sorted by theme. A separate section could, for instance, mention the causes for the French revolution.
The various aspects of the topic are balanced. The text presents different viewpoints on the subject, such as how various scholars have tried to solve the same problem. No aspect of the topic takes over the article, and all aspects are covered. More important viewpoints receives more space in the article. For example, an article about a cat breed that contains a long description about the temperament of that breed, but little or no information about the physical characteristics is obviously not well balanced.
The lead section is understandable for everyone, and summarizes the key points covered in an article. If it is not easy to understand, the person or persons who wrote it is most likely not an expert on the subject. Anything that is essential to understanding the subject should be included here. A biography should, for instance, mention why the person is known, distinguishing features, and living dates, but not the name of his or her pet (unless the pet is the reason he or she is known).
The content is neutral. Wikipedia's policy is that articles must be written without bias, and present previously published notable views. This means that the content can describe both positive and negative things about a subject, such as controversies around a popular person, as long as these facts can be referenced to reliable sources. Good articles also have a neutral language. For example, instead of saying: "She was the best singer", the text should say: "She had 14 number one hits, more than any other singer."
References to reliable sources are important. Good articles have plenty of footnotes at the bottom. Links to official websites and well-known books about the subject are good signs here. The article about the moon does likely have a link to NASA's website but not to the website of any hobby astronomer.
Signs of bad quality
When you use Wikipedia as a starting point or for background information, you are mostly safe. But below are some warning signs that the article is not very good. If an article has more than two of these warning signs you should find another source (and later improve the Wikipedia article):
The article has a warning sign at the top. Most warning signs are only information or requests, such as asking you to help expand the article as it is very short. But there are warning signs about the content not being neutral, or plagiarizing another source, where you should be very careful.
Several language problems in the lead section of the article. Chances are, there are multiple problems with the article.
The language contain plenty of opinions and value statements, without any source, or only referring to "some", "many" or other unnamed groups of people. These statements are not neutral and should be removed.
There seem to be aspects of the topic that is missing from the table of contents, and the article. For instance, in an article about a person, a missing period of that person's life suggests that the biography misses important facts.
Some parts of the subject are much bigger than the other. This indicate that the article is biased. A big "criticism" section in an otherwise short article about a company, suggest that the article is biased against the company. This section should be completed with other information.
The article has very few references (footnotes) or sources. If an article is based on too few sources, it is most likely biased in one direction.
The discussion page is filled with hostile dialogues, This signifies that one side of the discussion may have gotten the upper hand in the article, and rendered it partial.