User:451coffee/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: R V Jordan (2016)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: The Jordan decision has had (in my opinion) significant impacts on criminal justice in Canada. By placing a quantifiable limit on wait-time-to-trial, it hopes to eliminate the some issues in the court system. However, the Jordan decision has inadvertantly caused other issues. This is especially true for Indigenous Peoples given their overrepresentation in the criminal justice system. I also found this article to be lacking depth.

Lead

 * 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 (except for Contents box)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is only one sentence long. It provides basic information on the Supreme Court of Canada decision and which framework/case law was used prior to the new ruling. What is unclear in the lead, and throughout the article, are what the effects of exceeding the time limits are. The Jordan decision means that charges being stayed or withdrawn (dropped) if it takes too long for a provincial court to proceed. The lead does not give an overview of the article's major sections (understandable since it is such a short article). It is written in a concise manner; however, such a long sentence is difficult to read.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes. Descriptions of legal rulings do not change.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, missing (see evaluaton)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, but it should.

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant; it provides four very short sections (Background, Ruling, Concurrence, and Aftermath). It is relatively up to date since the last two references link to news articles from June and July 2020. However, significant content is missing, especially in the Aftermath section. The Jordan decision has had tremendous impact on the criminal justice system, with many cases being stayed each year. As a result it has changed the way that the Crown works; this is noted in the article but changes are not explained. Annecdotally, the Jordan decision has had a disproportionate impact on Indigenous Peoples who are involved in the criminal justice system (both positively and negatively). Supreme Court rulings such as the Jordan decision do not stand alone, but on a backdrop of other criminal justice "reforms" put in place in recent years. Their impact and aftermath cannot be taken separately, especially when looking at marginalized populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this article is straightforward and legalistic. Simply because it presents no "sides" or "arguments," it reads as balanced. However, as a result of it's legalistic tone and the reference news articles provided, the reader can infer that the Jordan decision is a bad thing; that it lets accused go free and has left courts scrambling. The best example of this submiminal messaging is the final sentence, "This case decision ruling is informally known as the 'Jordan decision', 'Jordan ruling', or 'Jordan rule'. Each of the informal names is referenced, with news articles that discuss a reconsidering of the Jordan decision, a desire for justice, and a murder trial that will not go forward. There is no mention of human rights for accused/detained, other than the right to be tried in a reasonable time. Similarly, there is no mention of the impacts that long waittimes to trial have on both victims and accused.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No

Sources and references evaluation
Four links are not provided to references of court cases, which should be relatively easy to link. Additionally, the first reference (the actual Supreme Court ruling) also includes a link to a Wikipedia page for a different R v Jordan case in English criminal law. There is a Wikipedia link to the previous case that was used to distinguish untimely delays (R v Morin), but the page does not exist. The only reference that is neither a news article nor a court proceeding is an analysis of the ruling on the blog of a Canadian law firm that specializes in commercial/business law (based on their website). The legal blog and news articles, while reliable, do not meet a high standard for reliable resources. Although I have not looked for additional resources, I am sure there is more literature available on the topic, especially legal commentaries, case applications, and the broader impacts of the Jordan decision.

Organization

 * 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
The article is well-written and has no errors. At times, legal jargon can be confusing to read, for example the block quote in the Concurrence section. I think the article would be more understandable to a general audience if these sections were translated from jargon to plain language.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, under CC.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
There is an image of the Supreme Court of Canada building, which is relevant since it is a Supreme Court ruling. However, the image does not add anything to the article.

Checking the talk page

 * 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?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There is no activity on the talk page at all; it is completely empty. The article is rated Start-Class, and is attached to WikiProject Canada. It is also rated as Low-importance.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
This article is rated Start-Class. The strength of the article is in providing an overview of an important legal ruling. However, the article is underdeveloped. It could be improved by the addition of a more robust Aftermath section, highlighting examples of implementation in court cases, the effect on trials, and the impact on Indigenous and other marginalized people.

Optional activity

 * 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: