Training modules/dashboard/slides/10906-elements-of-not-so-great-articles/es

This page is a translated version of the page Training modules/dashboard/slides/10906-elements-of-not-so-great-articles and the translation is 67% complete.

Características de artículos que no han sido muy bien logrados Tendrás que leer Wikipedia de manera crítica para decidir si confiar o no en la información publicada. Te daremos algunas pisas para que distingas cuando un artículo no es muy bueno:

Warning banners. Often these make a statement about the article's reliability, though sometimes it's simply a suggestion for improvement. Make a note and read accordingly.
Are there language problems in the lead? For example, a very short lead might indicate that the article was written through staggered contributions, and could use a rewrite to tie it together.
Are there value statements, such as "the best" or "the most important"? Those are flags that it's written to persuade, or at least, not properly referenced.
Are there references to unnamed sources of information, such as "some people say," or "many believe"? Can you answer the question, "Who said that?"
Are there very few references or citations? Are the citations from good, reliable publishers, or are they from questionable websites or publishers with a clear bias?
Are some sections longer than others, despite being equally (or less) important? Are relevant sections missing completely?