User:Naahs123/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]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose to evaluate this article because it came up under the stub communication section. Upon further looking into the article, I noticed that there was very limited information in regards to how signals were interpreted by individuals. Also the examples provided lack information/examples. I felt as if this page needed to be improved upon.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article itself provides a basic understanding of recognition signals. Where it lacks however is how these symbols understood by the individuals who witness them. In other words while the wiki page explains what recognition signals are I find that it lacks in how they are understood.
Moreover, the examples provided such as "war" and "police" did not serve as much help in terms of understanding the practical use of signals given the limited information. It is for that reason that I would like add to what is already created to help in perfecting this wiki page.