Wikipedia page type: Specific features of page
type:
Textual • Blurb
(main article) • Table of contents/sectional
divisions
• Graphics
• Background information
• Languages offered and
apparent differences
Meta-textual • Discrepancies of opinion
(discussion page) • Partiality
• Other agendas (eg.
Advertising)
• Identifiable authors
• Wording
• Underlying values
• Consistency with the goals
Questions/points of analysis around features:
1. How long is the blurb? What kind of audience does it assume? How
effectively does it define key issues and summarise the main
points? What if anything is left out? Why?
2. What are the main points of focus according to the table of
contents? What might the order of points suggest about the
relative importance of each point?
3. What images have been chosen and why?
4. What background information is given? Why might the authors
assume it is important that the reader knows this information?
5. What other languages are available for this article? Are the other
pages substantially different (in layout, appearance, content,
choice of images, etc) or are they word-for-word translations of the
English version? What inferences can be drawn from other-
language versions of articles about cultural assumptions,
discrepancies and so on?
6. What are the main points of disagreement? Have these been
resolved? If so, how?
7. According to the discussion, are there elements of partiality
towards particular viewpoints? Is this problematic? Why/why not?
8. Have other agendas been revealed that run contrary to the
neutrality goals of Wikipedia (eg. advancing an argument without
acknowledging alternative views, advertising a product, etc.)
9. Are there any noteworthy authors identifiable?
 of Wikipedia
Extra-textual • Number of footnotes
(links/footnotes) • Specificity of internal links
• Relative quality of external
links in the context of the
article
• Etymology of key terms
10. What discussion around appropriateness/inappropriateness of
wording exists? What inferences can be drawn?
11. What values are implicit in the discussion? What does the
discussion reveal about conflicting values?
12. According to the discussion, how consistent is the page with the
overall goals of Wikipedia?
13. How many footnotes are cited? What does the relative presence or
absence of footnotes say about the authors’ reading around the
article?
14. Are the internal links specific to ideas addressed in the article? Are
they vague/too general? What might this reveal about the topic
and/or the relative quality of the article?
15. How relevant are the external links? How has information from
them been used in the main article?
16. What inferences can be drawn from the etymology of the main
terms addressed in the article?