User:Advanced Legal Research Student/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating prosecutorial misconduct.

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 chose this article because the topic is relevant to my career interests. It matters for anyone who gets involved in criminal justice. My preliminary impression of the article is that it could be expanded to include information from more sources.

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 is too short to provide a useful overview of the topic. It also compares prosecutorial misconduct to selective prosecution without explaining how the two concepts are similar. Lastly, the final sentence in the lead refers to "sets of rules" that regulate prosecutors without specifying what those rules are. One idea is to list the source of those rules and then talk about them in more detail in the main body of the article.

Content: The article jumps from the lead into examples of prosecutorial misconduct. Strangely it describes a detective planting evidence at a crime scene as an example of prosecutorial misconduct; there is no mention how the prosecutor in that case was responsible for the detective's own misconduct. That example should probably either be revised or removed.

Tone and balance: The tone is good; it is neither sympathetic nor hostile toward prosecutors. The balance, however, tilts toward a U.S. perspective. All the examples of prosecutorial misconduct come from the United States.

Sources and references: The article lacks sources to peer-reviewed scholarly work. Most of the sources lead to news articles. There are better sources available--several scholarly articles discuss prosecutorial misconduct.

Organization and writing quality: The organization could be better. The paragraph that describes how often prosecutorial misconduct results in overturned convictions, reduced sentences, etc., is lumped in the section listing examples of prosecutorial misconduct. The same is true for the last paragraph, which explains disagreement over what exactly prosecutorial conduct means. Those two paragraphs should be separated from the examples of prosecutorial misconduct.

Images and media: The article contains no images.

Talk page discussion: The talk page is barren; nobody has left any messages. It's rated as Start but is not part of any WikiProjects.

Overall impressions : The article is okay, but the organization could use improvement. Examples from other countries can make the article more informative as well. And the biggest room for improvement lies in expanding the article by adding information from scholarly sources.