User:Dkag12/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]1994 California Proposition 187
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]Proposition 187 is largely credited with California's shift toward the Democratic Party. My research seeks to understand how the opposition movement organized and how it engendered this political realignment.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead is concise, providing a brief summary of the topic and foreshadowing the article's major sections. All of the content is relevant, although it could stand to be updated with more recent discussion on Proposition 187. The article is largely neutral as it balances multiple opinions on the topic. However, I would suggest that the language of "illegal immigrant" be changed to "undocumented" or "unauthorized immigrant" since the former bears a derogatory connotation. Most of the sources seem to be reputable. The organization of the article is clear and easy to follow, as are the images. The Talk page reveals that the article has not been updated since roughly 2010, suggesting that revisions may be due.