![]() | 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. |
The article looked interesting to read. It defined what environmental science is and the subfields of it. It was very informative about what environmental science is and it had helpful links that give more information about it.
I would also add more information on the field of environmental science as it mainly just defines it. It is very detailed and has a good introduction paragraph. The information relates to the topic and is mostly up to date. However, there is a citation used that is older. The article that was cited was from 1994. It needs to be updated for the most accurate information. The tone of the article is neutral as it mainly focuses on explaining the parts of environmental science. The article is organized and has good pictures that support what is being discussed throughout it. The talk page is discussing a few difference definitions that need to be explained better. They also want to improve the first sentence which I agree with them. Overall, the article is good as is explains a lot about environmental science. However, some of the wording could be better throughout the article.