User:Abella16/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-GDP_ratio

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)I've chosen to evaluate this article because I'm interested in Economics. I know that there are often differing ideas about economic policy regarding how to manage debt and GDP, so I thought it would be an interesting article to evaluate because of the potential for polarizing and opinionated language and the complexity of the subject.

This topic is important because it's connected to the economic wellbeing of our country and its citizens.

My preliminary impression of the article was that it has a decent foundation, but is relatively short and can be built upon. Many issues in the talk-page such as dated figures and facts need to be updated.

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.)

Lead Section

The lead section defines the Debt-GDP ratio immediately. It also avoids biased language while providing a simplistic overview of the topic. There are sections of the article that are not specifically mentioned or referenced in the lead section. in addition, the lead section mentions a different ration, commonly confused wit the Debt-GDP ratio that is not mentioned again in the rest of the article. Overall, it could probably be improved to mention the subtopics that will be discussed in the article.

Content

The article’s content is relevent to the topic.

The article’s content is not entirely up to date. There is discussion concerning this in the talk page. For instance, the information about China’s debt-GDP ratio needs to be updated.

There is some content that is missing or needs to be developed more. Specifically, private debt and GDP ratios.

The article does not deal with an equity gap or historically unrerrepresented topic in Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance

The article uses a neutral tone throughout. There are no opinions or polarizing statements and no attempts to persuade the reader of one thing or another. However, there is not a very balanced coverage of all viewpoints surrounding the debt-GDP ratio.

Sources and References

Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source. There are several areas where citations are needed.

The sources seem to be somewhaty dated, as people on the talk page have pointed out information that is outdated, with updated sources to back the new information up.

Somne sources are peer reviewed while others have no indication that they are.

The several online links that I checked did work.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is fairly cincise and easy to understand. Some of the ideas could be further explained for those that do not have any background knowledge in economics. It does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. It’s well organized into managable sections, but the sections are not adequately depicted in the lead section.

Images and Media

The article includes images that enhance the understanding of the topic. Images are well captioned and all of them adhere to copyright regulations. Images are displayed in a way that is visually appealing and that enhances understanding of the article.

Talk Page Discussion

The article is rated as a C-Class article related to economics and finance & investment. The talk page seems to be relatively respectful and civil. Many editors are asking questions to each other. Another modified links and asked for others to review their edits. Others have made comments about the timeliness of the data and figures included in the article. All of these discussions are civil and seem to be asking questions before making big edits to the page. One editor on the talk page titled a post “This whole article is BS”. This hostile title was the only one of its kind, but indicates that somewhere in the article, there is something that’s percieved to be wrong or misleading. It might be important to include the point that this commentator is expressing in the rest of his comment if it’s not opinionated and can be sourced. It also might just be an opinion. Someone else responded very respectfully, indicating that they agreed about certain points the commentator made about the article, but that some changes might be hard to make while staying away from bias.

Overall Impressions

Overall, the article is still developing and needs to be updated.

The article has a strong foundation for basic information and ideas for new information to include.

The article could be improved by including various viewpoints and fringe ideas about the debt-GDP ratio. It could also be made more up-to-date. In addition, more citations need to be added.

The article is incomplete at the moment, but is a great starting point for a well-developed article. Many of the improvements that would make the article well-developed are in the works, being discussed in the article’s talk page by several editors.