User:PaigeCarmichael1/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (link) Talk:Living wage and Living wage
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- This article is a C-Rated article part of a WikiProject on Economics. This topic of a living wage is particularly relevant to ECN 445 because the existence of a living wage relates to the number of people in poverty and their standard of living there.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The introductory sentence does a good job introducing the topic, but the whole first paragraph is necessary to gain a nuanced definition of living wage.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Some of the sections are introduced in the first section, but it is not clearly organized.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- The two graphics in the lead are not elaborated on or explained fully in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The Lead is concise, in fact, I think it could use more detail to introduce all topics better.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- For the most part the article has content that is relevant, there is just not a good flow between all of the different locations and examples provided.
Is the content up-to-date?
- The major table in the article has data from 2000, so I would say there are gaps in up to date content.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There is little discussion of poverty and the number of people in poverty and how that relates to living wage. I think that could add to the definition and discussion of why knowing what a living wage is would be important.

Is the article neutral?
- No. There are several places where there are unsupported claims or inferences from the author. One example is the 'Impact' section 4th paragraph.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- The above example is bias toward a particular view and is missing ciations to support claims.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- I wouldn't say that any views are overrepresented but I do think that some fluidity and content gaps make it feel like some views are underrepresented.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- I do not think this article is an attempt to persuade the reader.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Some facts are but some major claims and inferences are missing citations.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- There are a variety of sources presented for all the material, I do not think there is a significant gap in available literature used for this piece.
Are the sources current?
- Most sources are within the 2000s.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Four of the five links I checked worked.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- This article is a little difficult to read. The main focus jumps around and there is emphasis on protests and movements of living wage. I think there is a break in flow at several points that could use editing.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I did not find any.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- See the first point in this section, I think the main focus is unclear and sections could be broken down better.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- The first two images do not enhance the understanding of the topic. The third image is not explained well and doesn't fit in with the topics being discussed at that point.
Are images well-captioned?
- Aside from the first three, yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes, clicking on the images leads to the source credit.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Aside from the first two, yes. I think the protest photos could be larger, you miss some detail with such a small size.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There is debate about living wage relative to minimum wage and if charts including minimum wage should be present or not. Also, there are some nasty comments related to this debate. There was also a specific section on 'Catholic School Teachings' that used to be first, but was removed.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- This is a C-Rated article part of a WikiProject on Economics.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- There was less discussion about living wage relative to poverty and measures of poverty. Also, there were some contradictions in the article about living wage relative to minimum wage that are being disputed in the talk section.

What is the article's overall status?
- This article still needs edits and improvements to pass a C-Status rating.
What are the article's strengths?
- There is a strong section on "Living Wage Movements" that gives a good understanding of history on people fighting for living wage.
How can the article be improved?
- There should be more cohesion between the topics and points so the article does not feel disjointed. Also, the living wage definitions and estimates sections could be explained more.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- This article is not poorly developed, there are some valuable resources and topics, but it is underdeveloped. I think the C-Rating is accurate given the work that needs to be done.

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~