User:Qrtzi/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: (link)Judicial populism
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- seemed interesting, also could need edits
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?
- not really, it just summarizes the term
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- no
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- concise, could use more material
Lead evaluation
[edit]Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- yes
- Is the content up-to-date?
- yes, sources from as recently as 2020
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- yes, it addresses "elitist bias in the justice system"
Content evaluation
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- yes as far as I can tell
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- no
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- no
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- no
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- not entirely, there are some non-cited facts
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- unsure - would need to perform literature review
- Are the sources current?
- for the most part, yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- unsure
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- only one link leads to an incomplete page
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- yes
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- no
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
yes
Organization evaluation
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- yes
- Are images well-captioned?
- not really, the context of the image is not addressed
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- good enough
Images and media evaluation
[edit]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?
- none
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- not rated
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- we havent talked about it
Talk page evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status?
- I would give it between a c and b rating
- What are the article's strengths?
- good coverage of the material
- How can the article be improved?
- more elaboration on literature and better citations
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- needs further development
Overall evaluation
[edit]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: