User:An anonymous entity/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Sociology)

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.)

I chose this article because sociology is a subject I am familiar with, and frankly I could not think of anything else to search... Sociology is one of my favorite topics, which makes sense coming from an ANSO major. Sociology matters because it examines the facets of our world that lie just beneath the surface. My preliminary impression was that the article was a well rounded overview of the discipline.

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.)

The Lead Section is well done, the first sentence is an easily understood introduction to the topic which would be understood by people with no previous knowledge to the subject. The lead does include brief introductions of the article's main sections in a concise manner, and does not mention topics which are not covered in the full article.

Content

The content is relevant, unbiased. Though, most importantly the article does address topics of equity and representing minority viewpoints regarding historically underrepresented topics and peoples.

Tone and Balance

Overall the article does read neutral. Sociological analysis tends to require a certain neutrality, which the article does well. Although, in some of the sections on early sociologists which detail their contributions to the discipline some of the word choice seems to reflect slight biases. Though that could just be to reflect how their respective theories were perceived.

Sources and References

There is a "citation needed" stamp after a sentence in the History section of the article, as well as in the etymology section.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well organized and follows a coherent analysis of the development of sociology, from its origins and founders, the different sub disciplines, schools of thought, factors considered "theoretical problems" with the discipline, research methods, and where sociology overlaps with different disciplines and social sciences.

Images and Media

The article provides many well captioned images that help to contextualize the people and topics referenced. Images are formatted in an appealing way, and correspond with their respective sections of the article.

Talk Page Discussion

The article is rated C-Class, which means that it cites reliable sources, it has higher quality structure and style than a start-class article, but that it does not quite qualify as a b-class article. It is listed in several wikiprojects. The discussion is closed on the talk page, with a note not to modify it. Though there are records of comments that the article "clearly does not meet article 2 of the GA criteria" and that "there is quite a lot of uncited material" Talk:Sociology

Overall Impressions

The article was removed from the "good articles" list because it does not meet the necessary criteria. The article is eligible for renomination if the proper edits are made though. I thought that the article was okay for a broad overview of the subject, but I would not use it for any scholarly writing because of how it is rated and discussed in the talk page. I would agree that it needs more complete citations and to be revised accordingly.