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

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

I am conducting research on the island of California for my PWR class, and I would like to make a contribution to existing knowledge on Wikipedia.

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? - yes, however, it has some misleading information. The section provides a good overview but mentions that the island of California was a "European misconception", when in fact the entire world was misled about the nature of California, even in Asia.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - No, it does not

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) - No, it includes all relevant information

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? - It is concise, sitting at just 2 sentences

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? -Yes

Is the content up-to-date? - Yes, evidently so

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Some content is missing. It provides a very thorough description of Hernan Cortes' journey around California, and also mentioned that some maps in the late 1500s were correct, but fails to mention the story of how pirates stole Cortes' map and spread this false information to the rest of the world.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No, this is irrelevant as the topic is purely historical

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? - Yes, it does not make straight claims about some things, but rather postulates about the likelihood about certain things to remain neutral

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No, this is purely historical

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? - No

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No, it merely displays the facts

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? - Yes

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Sort of. While the source list is limited, I am personally familiar on the informational density of these sources, and believe that all the information from the article came from just 5 sources.

Are the sources current? - For the most part, but even this is not that important as the article is on the events of the 1500s

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Unsure

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.) - Yes, such as California As an Island: An Illustrated Essay

Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes, 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? - Yes, for the most part it uses clear and straightforward english

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? - Not that I saw

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - No, the article has only one section: History

Images and Media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

- Yes, 2 images of maps showing California as an island, and one google earth Screenshot which doesn't really serve much purpose since we all know what California Looks like

Are images well-captioned? - Yes, showing what the map is of, who made it, and when it was published

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - Yes

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Somewhat, on the right side of the article.

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? - Most of the comments are just people saying "whoops, you forgot to mention this", indicating that this article is correct, but incomplete

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - It was selected as an article of improvement for 1 week back in 2013

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? - The article is purely fact-based and neutral, while in PWR we add nuance to an argument and make claims

Overall impressions What is the article's overall status? - Thorough in the information it provided, but otherwise incomplete

What are the article's strengths? - Details about names and dates

How can the article be improved? - talking about Sir Francis Drake's Voyage, and the pirates that took over Fray Antonio's voyage (this is surprisingly relevant to the story)

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - Underdeveloped for the reasons mentioned above