User:Debungalo/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
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?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Criminology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

This article covers the topic of Criminology, which is an important field in understanding the context of United States history. Criminology enables people to understand how the criminal justice system works and it impacts their lives. I chose it because it helps me understand my major and the role I serve as a citizen and employee at a police department. My preliminary impression was that it is broad and quite encompassing of the field of Criminology. At the same time it was also detail oriented.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The article provides a simple explanation of what criminology is and what criminologists are and clearly states what this article will be about. The article starts of by going into the origins of the topic and is up to date with our current understanding of the topic, but could be update to include the latest years of Criminology research. It discusses more terms and definitions, the schools of thought and theory and are all at an equal depth, which balances out the topics. It is a large topic, so at times the article feels less organized, but it does include proper headers and sub-headers to make it easier to read. Furthermore, the absence of grammatical errors makes it easy to read. Every section has multiple references that have links available, and there are a lot of sources at the bottom of the page. There are also links to sub-topics which go into more detail about specific topics under Criminology. It remains neutral and does not suggest the field of Criminology to be negative or positive. It does address some populations that are historically underrepresented but not all of them. The article is not very efficient at including important images that help the audience understand the topic, and they are not very visually appealing, but they are well-captioned. The talk page includes some good questions by others that could enhance the content of this article. There are talks of nature vs nurture, demographic factors, and overall ways to make it better. It is rated B-class and is a part of psychology, criminology, and sociology WikiProjects. We have talked about similar content that is on Wikipedia, but we have more in-depth analysis and conversation. We can express opinions more than Wikipedia, which changes how we perceive certain topics that are neutral on Wikipedia. The article's overall status is a level 4, and I would say it is an average Wikipedia page, and it comes short when including important topics. It could be better be adding the recommended ideas in the talk page, such as deleting some pictures, fixing the vandalism on the article, and being more organized. Therefore, this article is underdeveloped and could be added to.