User:Angcd20/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: (Sexual Assault Awareness Month)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * April is known to be Sexual Assault Awareness Month and this topic surrounds what I would like to research for my field study/future career. I am interested in spreading awareness about power-based personal violence and I would like to research the effect that community education has when it comes to access to resources and power-based violence.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I think that the lead is very short but it does not feel concise with the information it chose to present. It contains three long sentences that I feel could be broken up to better introduce the article and improve the overall grammar. It hints at some of the major sections within the article but it is not clear what is going to be discussed. There are also a few lists of different things involved in SAAM but I think that could have been mentioned more in the major content.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content of the article was informative but it did not flow well and I have trouble seeing how the sections blend with one another. The information included is relevant to Sexual Assault Awareness Month but it felt awkward to read and did not feel natural. There was also a whole section dedicated to something that only contained one sentence. I felt that if there was not much information on it, it did not need to be included or it could have been incorporated in some other way.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article had a consistent and neutral tone throughout its entirety. It stated the facts and history of the topic but did not seem to take sides or present a specific argument. As mentioned in my previous comments, there were sections that felt like there was barely information so I think it would have been better to incorporate it in some other way. However, there seemed to be no bias or specific viewpoint on the subject.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used in the article work and seem credible. As this is a newer topic, there is not much academic research but the links to the organizations that seemed to spearhead the conversation all provide information similar to what is in the article. They reflect the information presented and since the information revolves more around the history of the topic, there is not much of a need for informational updates.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is written well enough that it is easy to read and understand but the thoughts could be organized into a more coherent order. It felt like the information was taken and spliced together without much consideration on how they build off of one another. It is not concise as some of the sentences could easily be broken up into different thoughts and some could be combined to help condense information. Most of the article sections are useful as it pertains to the topic but the actual information in them is something that could use cleaning.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There is no visual appeal in the article. There is one basic image with a caption that matches the text inside. It repeats information already provided and it does not provide a source for where the image came from.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There does not seem to be any discussion about he article but it is part of the WikiProject Crime collaboration. While we have not talked about this topic explicitly in class, it is part of something that I am interested in doing my research on and something I learn about in my extracurriculars. It differs from the information I've gained in those aspects by providing a full layout of the history instead of focusing on the current events of it.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think that there is a lot of good information in the article but the structure and format could be better. If the thoughts were elaborated in a different way, I think that it would be easier for someone to understand the topic and see the relevance to it.

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: