User:Aiqin314/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Social science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as the title first caught my attention. This is an overall field, which encapsulates my own and more specific field of study.

The topic of social sciences ultimately matters because, as the term implies, social sciences are the academic focus of societal constructs and institutions — constructs and institutions that everyone is a part of whether they are aware of them or not. My preliminary thoughts on the article were that this would be a simple rundown of the basic topics, and perhaps highlights of history throughout, such as major theories.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is concise, detailing the definition of social sciences, a brief etymology, and what social sciences include. To cut down on the length of the paragraph, I would consider removing the etymology of the word and when it was coined. It then goes onto discuss two main types of social researchers, which potentially could have been a bit more concise than it was presented as.

The content seems, for the most part, expected of a standard Wikipedia page. However, it does not discuss historically underrepresented populations or topics, which means that this article does not address the equity gap that Wikipedia hopes to address as an overall goal. I think the article is relatively strong, and does a good job of pointing out the main subsets of the social sciences. However, for the section on the low funding of social sciences, I believe it could be expanded upon, despite the significance of the topic the entry focused on. I also found it interesting that Confucius was listed under "People," but there is no mention of Asian social sciences.

The tone of the article is neutral, and fringe / minority opinions are stated as such. For instance, in parentheses. Writing is clear and understandable with reasonable sections in the article for the reader to follow and understand. There are some small images; however, they could be better placed, larger, and more appropriate per each section.

The article is of interest to many WikiProjects, although it is not a part of any of these projects. It is rated as a level-3 vital article in Society. I also noticed that someone had mentioned that it was a bit Eurocentric when discussing the 18th century. I also believe this to be true. I also noticed that one commenter had hinted at the article's reliance on "academic discipline" rather than science despite the phrase "social science." Furthermore, there was a suggestion of discussing the role of social engineering as well as part of the article.

Overall, I think this article could still use a bit more work. It leaves out significant global history regarding societies and the building of societies around the world; different areas may have different formations of these ideas and different concepts. Pictures could also be greatly improved as they seem a bit awkwardly placed and tucked into corners.