User:Amartya.eking/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I choose to evaluate this page because i thought it would be interesting to see how exactly the government decided to compensate the first responders for the medical effects on those that are still alive.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes it does it describes what the law is.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes it does include a brief description of the major sections of the article.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Yes it has who reauthorizes the bill in the lead but not the main section.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes it is relevant to the topic


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes it is up to date as it includes the passing of the bill for a second time.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No there is not anything that doesn't belong or is missing.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes this is a neutral article that is not partisian.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No there do not appear to be any claims that are biased toward a position.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I feel like the reatuthorization should have been a bit longer and talked about that process a bit more.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No it does not it is pretty unbiased and does a good job of not taking a position and just says the facts

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes they are all backed up by a reliable secondary source.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes they are thorough and do reflect literature on the topic


 * Are the sources current?

Yes the are current.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes there is a diverse spectrum of authors from both sides of the political spectrum


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes they do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes it is well written and easy to follow.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Not that I could see of.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes it is well broken down although it could have gone into more depth on some of the topics

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Ehh, not really but the pictures are as relevant as you could get to the topic


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes the images are well captioned.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

yes they follow the regulations


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

yes they are laid out in a visually appealing way

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Just from 2019 that the information needed to be updated.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

From what I see it is not part of any wikiprojects and i think it is rated well.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

It talks about the action actually taken for the responders and talks about how it got reauthorized.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

Overall status is good, it is a clear consise article with all the necessary facts.


 * What are the article's strengths?

Strength is that it goes into good detail about why it wasn't passed at first and then how it was changed and brought to light.


 * How can the article be improved?

I think that it could have more info on the reautorization.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I would say that it is complete and is a good article.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: