User:PrismaticJelly/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: 1926 Passaic textile strike (1926 Passaic textile strike)
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - Yes
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - No
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Concise, if somewhat lacking in information.
Lead evaluation
[edit]While the lead is concise, it may be too concise, as it leaves out an overview of the major sections of the article.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - Yes
- Is the content up-to-date? - The article has not been edited since 2014. It could likely use an update.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Some acronyms are used without specification of what they stand for.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - It discusses the rights of the working class and their struggle for proper treatment in work environments.
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is substantial, but has not been edited in a while. Additionally, while dealing with rights of the working class, it fails to elaborate on the socio-politcal context for the strikes, instead touching mainly on the economic side.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral? - There is some biased language present.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - The article uses descriptors such as “miserable” to describe workers’ wages. This language is not indicative of an unbiased stance.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - The article appears to attempt to sway the reader in favor of the protestors.
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article, especially in the first half, favors the side of the protestors. This can be seen in its use of non-objective language.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Many of the citations feature the same source. The article would benefit from diversification of sources.
- Check a few links. Do they work? - The links are mostly functional, though there seem to be a few hyperlinks with no existing article as a destination.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]More variety should be present in the cited works. The links that direct to empty wikipedia pages should be removed.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Although organized, the article’s section headers appear to lack proper capitalization.
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There are some issues with capitalization and punctuation, particularly in section titles and the “Facilities Affected” section.
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - The article is broken down into acceptable segments.
Organization evaluation
[edit]The material is organized in a logical manner, however the lead does not touch upon this organization in full, nor does this organization use proper title case.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - The images provide helpful visual context.
- Are images well-captioned? - The images are suitably captioned.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - Images are missing copyright information.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - Yes
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The images, while providing useful visual aid, do not all have proper copyright information. This should be rectified immediately.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? - It appears the last discussions about the article took place in 2011. The latest edit was in 2014.
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - The article is rated C-class and is part of 3 WikiProjects.
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]The talk page is underutilized, especially considering that the last edit was in 2014, while the last talk page update was in 2011.
Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status? - The article is not marked as a stub or otherwise flagged.
- What are the article's strengths? - The article has a large quantity of information considering the amount of contributions made to it.
- How can the article be improved? - The article could be improved with a wider variety of sources and a less biased perspective on the information.
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - The article could do with refining and further research.
Overall evaluation
[edit]The article is interesting and covers a lesser-known communist work strike. However, it has a problem with biased language, poorly credited images, and lack of diversity in citations. The talk page also fails to properly document the suggested implementations of various edits.
Optional activity
[edit]- 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 — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: