User:AleutianTea/Evaluate an Article

AleutianTea (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Utopian studies

Community youth development

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.)

Utopian studies: I choose Utopian studies because I know practically nothing about it. Utopian Studies matter because it can help us think about and thereby create a more ideal world. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was lacking.

Community youth development: I choose this article because it is the sector under which my PE falls under. This article matters because many youth organizations exist and thus, it is useful to understand their classifications -- one of which is community youth development. My immediate impression of it was that it was extremely brief and under-researched.

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.)

Utopian studies

Lead section: the introductory statement was a good synthesis of the subject. It was short yet listed the subject's major components. However, a few of the things mentioned in the Lead section were not further detailed in the article's major sections. In other words, the lead section did include information not found elsewhere in the article; however, it linked these mentions to other Wikipedia articles. The lead section is concise.

Content: The content of the article is relevant to the subject and the information seems up to date. All the information discussed was relevant. The article does not address equity gaps.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral; in other words, there are no claims that seem biased. It is not persuasive article. Furthermore, as the article is so short, it does a good job of staying on critical points; fringe points not really discussed.

Sources and References: Not all the information is cited. Some sentences discussing specific events/dates are not given a citation. The sources are not thorough. Lots of dates are missing from the citations. Some of the citations are directly drawn from institutions conducting Utopian Studies; I am wondering whether that is a conflict of interest. Each source is by a different author; yet there are only four sources. Sources by historically underrepresented individuals do not seem to be included. The source links work but pretty much all of them direct me to websites opposed to scholarly, peer-reviewed works. Yes, much better sources exist, such as "A short history of utopian studies" (P Fitting).

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is easy to read and concise. It is straightforward. Nothing fanciful. I did not spot any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is clearly broken down into main points.

Images and Media: There is only one image and it is not captioned. The image, because it is unexplained, doesn't enhance my understanding. Yes, the image seems to abide by Wikipedia's copyright rules. Yes, the image is laid out in a visually attractive way. It is off to the side and thus doesn't disturb the main section of writing.

Talk Page Discussion: Conversations aren't really occurring. Mostly people have posted their critique and it has been left at that. The project does not seem to be part of WikiProjects and I did not see a rating. Many of the things we have discussed were brought up in the Talk page.

Overall Impressions: I think the article needs to be elaborated on. I think the article has a solid framework but is not detailed enough. I think the article is underdeveloped. It has pointed to some areas of the study of Utopian Studies but did not further discuss them.

Community youth development

Lead section: The lead section provides a good succinct overview of what community youth development is. The lead is not overly detailed. The introductory sentence is straight to the point by clearly defining the topic. However, no framework/outline for the rest of the article is given; though, the lead section is all that is present of the article.

Content: The content is relevant to the topic and is up to date. However, there is much content missing. In other words, there is not enough information and important aspects of the topic have not been covered. Needless to say, equity gaps were not addressed within this article.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral. No fringe points are discussed and the author does not use persuasion tactics.

Sources and References: None of the information is cited. However, certain words are hyperlinked. A couple scholarly sources were used. However, one link redirected the reader to a newsletter and a couple others led to specific community youth organizations. Including such resources could have added to the article by serving as examples if the article had been more extensive. However, since the information provided is so minimal, such websites seem irrelevant as the reader does not have framework for understanding the basics of community youth development. More informational sources are needed. It somewhat seems as the sources were randomly selected. However, the links work.

Organization and Writing Quality: There are no grammatical errors. The writing is clear. Again, the article is extremely brief and thus, is not divided into sections as the only existing portion is the lead.

Images and Media: No images provided.

Talk Page Discussion: No conversations occurring on the talk page.

Overall Impressions: The article is too brief and thus does not provide enough information. It needs to be further researched and built on.

AleutianTea (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)