User:Ashir649/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: The Concept of Law
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I selected it randomly

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 the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead describes very generally what the book is about and who the author is. Everything that is in the lead is also in the article but it also does not reference all the main topics on the page.

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 is relevant because it describes the main points of the book. The persistent questions section seems very short as if it should either be extended or just included in another section. I assume the content is up to date since the book was originally written in 1961. The article is still being updated as of February 6th 2020.

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 seems neutral. The only statements that seem like they could be opinions are those of the author of the book to better explain the reasoning for the chapters. There are two aspects that are described, one of which takes up one paragraph to explain, while the other is only given one sentence. It gives the idea that one is more important than the other.

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 article currently requires more sources to verify information. Each quotation is cited. The sources work but they are all fairly old. The newest source is from 2011. There are some large paragraphs that have no citations throughout.

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 fairly easy to read. Some of the paragraphs should be separated into multiple smaller paragraphs. Some of the main sections seem like they could be put into the same section.

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 only one image that is of the cover of the book. The caption is not very good, it only says that it is a first edition.

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
The conversations are only personal opinions of the book. The article is part of a philosophy wiki project. It is rated as a start-class article.

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 this article is so so. Some of the sections in the article are well written and have good details. Some of the sections need to be fleshed out and others need more citations and need to be broken up into smaller paragraphs. I think this article has details but they are not cited well enough to be used as an actual reference. The article is definitely more developed than other articles on Wikipedia but it could be much better.

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: