User:Alabaw25/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Politics in education
 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead section of the article seemed to delve into the core ideas of politics in education without ever really defining what exactly politics in education is. It explains the roots but never really leads back to the main idea, and includes information that's not elaborated upon later on. The article's content is relevant, but at present, it seems only tangentially. Macro- and micro-politics are defined, but barely related back to the education system and explained in that context. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Source-wise, the article seems to be missing many citations. There are only two in the entire passage, and there are definitely statements -- mainly, definitions -- which could use attribution. Organizationally, the article does not seem to have a purposeful structure. You could switch around any of the three paragraphs and it would not seem to have any major difference on the conveyance of information. The writing style is succinct, but perhaps too much so; the article feels overly general and never really delves into the politics of education with any examples. There are no images and media included in this article. On the talk page, Wikipedians concur with my conclusions, namely, that the article is too vague and scattered in organization, and could use more elaboration on the definitions. The talk page also made me notice that the references are very outdated, from over 20 years ago. Overall, I believe the article's only real strengths are brevity and neutrality, but the former ends up ultimately as a weakness, since the reader finishes the article feeling like they have not learned much, if at all. The article can be improved with more relation of the political definitions back to the education system, and maybe a few examples of how politics has influenced education in the past. I would say that this article is underdeveloped, but at least on the right track. I chose this article because, while I am not a political science major, I am interested in politics and its influence on the education system. This article matters because it gives an overview of the power structures that influence school systems from both within and above them. My preliminary impression of it was that it was short and so brief that I felt I hadn't really gleaned any substantial new information from it. The terminology explanations were vague and never really elaborated upon in a detailed, pertinent manner. As for tone and balance, the article is neutral, but missing elaboration on other points of view. It briefly mentions "more debates" but never describes the positions taken in these debates.
 * The lead section of the article seemed to delve into the core ideas of politics in education without ever really defining what exactly politics in education is. It explains the roots but never really leads back to the main idea, and includes information that's not elaborated upon later on. The article's content is relevant, but at present, it seems only tangentially. Macro- and micro-politics are defined, but barely related back to the education system and explained in that context. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Source-wise, the article seems to be missing many citations. There are only two in the entire passage, and there are definitely statements -- mainly, definitions -- which could use attribution. Organizationally, the article does not seem to have a purposeful structure. You could switch around any of the three paragraphs and it would not seem to have any major difference on the conveyance of information. The writing style is succinct, but perhaps too much so; the article feels overly general and never really delves into the politics of education with any examples. There are no images and media included in this article. On the talk page, Wikipedians concur with my conclusions, namely, that the article is too vague and scattered in organization, and could use more elaboration on the definitions. The talk page also made me notice that the references are very outdated, from over 20 years ago. Overall, I believe the article's only real strengths are brevity and neutrality, but the former ends up ultimately as a weakness, since the reader finishes the article feeling like they have not learned much, if at all. The article can be improved with more relation of the political definitions back to the education system, and maybe a few examples of how politics has influenced education in the past. I would say that this article is underdeveloped, but at least on the right track. I chose this article because, while I am not a political science major, I am interested in politics and its influence on the education system. This article matters because it gives an overview of the power structures that influence school systems from both within and above them. My preliminary impression of it was that it was short and so brief that I felt I hadn't really gleaned any substantial new information from it. The terminology explanations were vague and never really elaborated upon in a detailed, pertinent manner. As for tone and balance, the article is neutral, but missing elaboration on other points of view. It briefly mentions "more debates" but never describes the positions taken in these debates.

Sources

Teacher politics bottom-up: theorising the impact of micro-politics on policy generation

Article rating

Stub

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Agent causation
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is remarkably short, with only three sentences. The lead section includes a sentence that briefly introduces the topic but the article does not delve any further besides mentioning proponents of the theory. It does not include any descriptions of possible major sections of the article. Content-wise, the article is severely lacking. From what is written, the tone is clearly neutral, although the lack of content subsequently underrepresents the various points of view regarding agent causality. There are two sources, both current, but the second does not appear to have any substantial ethos. There are definitely more reliable sources to cite. The article's language is clear but the punctuation needs improvement (namely, the inconsistent em dash spacing). There are no included images or media, but this may not be necessary for this particular topic. Overall, the article needs the most improvement in adding content and elaborating more on the theory and its proponents. I chose this article because I took a class last semester about free will and human action, so I studied this topic. This article matters because it should explain one of the key theories about whether or not we have free will. My preliminary impression of it was that it seemed correct, but far too brief to make readers feel like they have a basic grasp of the idea of agent causality.
 * This article is remarkably short, with only three sentences. The lead section includes a sentence that briefly introduces the topic but the article does not delve any further besides mentioning proponents of the theory. It does not include any descriptions of possible major sections of the article. Content-wise, the article is severely lacking. From what is written, the tone is clearly neutral, although the lack of content subsequently underrepresents the various points of view regarding agent causality. There are two sources, both current, but the second does not appear to have any substantial ethos. There are definitely more reliable sources to cite. The article's language is clear but the punctuation needs improvement (namely, the inconsistent em dash spacing). There are no included images or media, but this may not be necessary for this particular topic. Overall, the article needs the most improvement in adding content and elaborating more on the theory and its proponents. I chose this article because I took a class last semester about free will and human action, so I studied this topic. This article matters because it should explain one of the key theories about whether or not we have free will. My preliminary impression of it was that it seemed correct, but far too brief to make readers feel like they have a basic grasp of the idea of agent causality.


 * Sources
 * Agent Causation and Acting For Reasons

Article rating

Stub

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Causal chain


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's lead section includes an introductory sentence that gives a succinct, basic overview of the topic. The next sentence, however, does introduce information that is not present in the rest of the article. The content is relevant and up-to-date but still lacking in regards to theories about causal chains. The tone of the article starts out neutral but seems to lean more argumentative at the end when the term "misleading" is used. There are, as aforementioned, underrepresented viewpoints about causal chains and their implications. The article seems to overrepresent the idea that causal chains may not exist. There is only one citation, attributed in the introductory sentence, which delegitimizes the rest of the information provided in the article. The source is from a philosopher, which may not be entirely appropriate because the philosopher is likely making an argument. More sources are needed from a diverse set of authors. The organization of the article needs improvement, as all the information is jumbled into one paragraph. The writing quality could be more brief and clear, especially toward the end. There are no images or media, which seems appropriate. Overall, the article needs to give more space for other viewpoints about causal chains (especially those which believe in their existence) and credit more citations. I chose this article because, like the former, I studied this topic in a class about free will and human action, and am intrigued by the topic. My preliminary impression of the article was that the information was too cramped into one paragraph and could use some breaks in between the long sentences for clarification purposes.


 * Sources
 * Kant and Crusius on Causal Chains

Article rating

Stub

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources