User:Alam29/sandbox

Part 1:
Quality rating helps evaluate the quality of an article. This can be found by clicking "Talk" on the top of an article.

Elements of quality articles:


 * Detailed lead section
 * Clear structure
 * Balanced content
 * Neutral tone
 * Good sourcing

Elements of poor quality articles:


 * Warning banners
 * Fragmented lead section
 * Value statements
 * Gaps in sourcing
 * Under-developed reference section, few citations
 * Imbalanced sections

When finding sources, find peer reviewed sources from institutional academic databases.

Sources can be used for other editors to "fact-check" your article.

Cite at least once per paragraph. Any quotations, hard facts, and controversial claims must be cited.

Elements of a good source:


 * Independent sources
 * Sources known for fact-checking and neutrality
 * Reliable publishers

Elements of a bad source:


 * Press releases and promotional material
 * Official websites
 * Self-published materials

To avoid any kind of plagiarism, collectively find information on your topic, understand it, and then write about it.

DO NOT USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS!

Use View history tab to see other people's edits on an article. You can also compare past edits with one another.

Part 2:
Evaluating the Article: Tiger Parenting

After reading this article, I can say that it does somewhat of a good job of explaining the term "tiger parenting" but there are things that could be improved. First I want to talk about what this article did right. From what I see, the article seem to mostly have good sources. It seem like most of the links from these sources are working and are relent (not outdated). Not only that, a lot of the sources are peer-reviewed and primary. The formatting of the article is simple and clean making it easy to read. The article is also split up nicely into different sections with each covering about the subject. In each section, it doesn't go off on a tangent and is closely related to the subject of the article which is good. Most of the stuff that is written in this article seem neutral. Not only that, a decent amount of stuff was written in each section (though I do have some issue in which I will explain later).

Now, let's get into what I think the article did wrong. Even though the article mostly have great sources, there are some sources that can be considered bad so we can easily fix that with better sources. It also seem like there are some close paraphrasing as I see the same words from the sources being used in the article which we can fix with better understanding of the sources and writing it in our own words. Though a simple and clean format is good in a sense that our eyes won't be distracted with too many things on the screen, it wouldn't hurt to add a few images or even statistically graphs to help the reader better understand the subject or to simply make the article less bland. I like how the article is split up into different sections, but there are some pressing issues throughout the article. The content of the article are unbalanced. There are sections that are written more than other sections. Either we add more to sections that need more explanations, combined less-written sections with other sections as some section are very similar to another section, or just take it out. There are sections that have little-to-no sources at all. We need more sources to back up what is written in the article!

Overall, this article is OK. It's a good article to get the reader interested in the subject with some pretty good sources. But, the article have plenty of faults with it's bland format and pretty bad sections within the article. It just need more sources and well-written sections until it becomes a great article.