User:Ktootch/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 used to live in Hershey, PA and this was my favorite rollercoaster in the park. I figure have a bit insight on some matters.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead section is good with what information it chooses to include taking time to talk about all major sections of the article: construction, closing, characteristics, and ranking. It is a bit long for the overall length of the article. The content is up to date, mentioning the recent closure, but it is also lacking much depth. The three major sections each only have a paragraph or two at most. With the limited number of sections and their brevity, the reader is left with the feeling that the page is missing information. The closing section is mainly speculation on a possible redesign. Despite the numerous sources that support the speculation, this page should present facts that are rather than focus on what could be. There is no confirmation at this point of RMC rebuilding the ride, and so speculation should be left out of the article rather than give the reader expectation of the unknown.
The organization of the article is good, but the content is not well written. Paragraphs are brittle, quickly switching from one fact to the next without taking the time to make sure that reading is smooth. Overall the feel is that of a bag of bullet points rather than an article. There are also a large number of sources for this page despite it's short length.
Overall, the biggest improvements that could be made at this time would be rewriting to make paragraphs clear and concise rather than bullet points vaguely organized and the removal of speculation of the ride's potential rebuild. Additional items to look at are also consolidating sources or adding to the content.