Wikipedia:Article assessment/African countries/Cape Verde
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assessment  |
| African countries |
| Undergoing assessment 13 March 2006 – 26 March 2006 |
| Assessments |
| Burundi Cape Verde |
Assessment of an article under the topic African countries.
Article: Cape Verde
Details of the assessment method can be found at the main page. Feel free to add comments when you assess an article, or use the talk page for discussion.
[edit] Review by Batmanand
- Coverage and factuality: 7
- Covers all the major bases, with a well thought-out subarticle system. Some of the subarticles are excellent (eg the history one), others less so (eg the culture one). The summaries of these are short, sometimes overly, but are usually fairly good. Lack of sources is a problem; only two sources are quoted, and there are no inline citations. The history subarticle has them, and they should be rolled out into the main article too.
- Writing style: 7.5
- Spelling is pretty much all excellent, grammar mostly good but occasionally less so (particularly some of the photo captions and one of the references). As mentioned, the summary style is generally well done.
- Structure: 8
- Has all the right components, although some are a little rough around the edges. Lead is probably too short. The subarticle system is well implemented, and the images and tables are pretty well chosen and laid out. Wikilinks are sensible and do not repeat much.
- Aesthetics: 7.5
- Images are nice, and their positions (mostly to the right) are visually pleasing. Some random white space (one of my pet hates), which should be removed. The lists are not too long, and do not detract from the article.
- Overall: 7 (not an average, I know, but I rate coverage and factuality considerably above aestetics, for example)
- Everything that is needed to make this an outstanding article is there, but often not fully implemented or finished. Needs a copyedit, a little more content, proper referencing and inline citations and some attention to the subarticles; and that is it. That should be taken as a compliment. Batmanand | Talk 22:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Review by User:Walkerma
- Coverage and factuality: 7
Most of the topics I would expect to see seem to have been covered, with links to main articles on each of the major topics. I can't comment on factuality as I am not a subject-expert, but there are is a lack of references (only two, and one ref reads more like "Further Reading" than a source used for the article). I'd like to see the politics section be a little longer, and a listing of actual populations of each ethnic group - we only have some emigrated populations! Also, there seem to be some pictures attached to "economy" which are nice but the things they show aren't described in the article, this section could probably also be expanded somewhat to describe briefly which specific products/services are significant.
- Writing style: 7
Generally good, a few rather weak sentences in places.
- Structure: 8
I like the structure. The infobox is good, and the sections flow nicely. The lead could be a couple of sentences longer.
- Aesthetics: 7
The pictures need to be organised so they don't create gaps in the article, and so they fit with the topic being discussed. Otherwise good.
- Overall: 7
With some expansion in places, proper organisation of the pictures and some inline refs this will be a very nice article. Good work so far! Walkerma 05:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
