User:BLThornton13/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Criminology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it relates to the topic of my course.

Evaluate the article
The article is very effective on the whole and has most features of the ideal Wikipedia page.

The lead section is strong. It introduces the topic in a concise and informative manner. The origins of criminology are discussed and a broad yet useful explanation is given for the field of study. The purpose of criminologists is addressed and the various offshoots of the field are listed.

The content seems to address the full range of issues associated with criminology and presents the information in a balanced and unbiased manner. The various schools of thought related to criminology are addressed and fleshed out. The amount of space dedicated to the various schools of thought is relatively balanced and does not seem to favor one over the other. The tone with which the content is presented is informative and neutral. I trust that the author of this page did not have an agenda other than to inform the reader about the field of criminology.

The organization and quality of writing is up to par. Perhaps there is room to make the writing even more tight and concise, but overall, it is strong. As a reader, I am able to easily follow the flow of the article and I can anticipate what section is going to come next, which I feel is a good quality for a Wikipedia page.

The use of images is effective and compliments the text. The images do not take away from any of the information but rather only supplement what the author offers. There is also an appropriate amount of images. Not too little to leave me wanting more but not too many to overwhelm me.

The Talk page is healthily active and has some compelling conversations. I like how some users present related pages they've created that were inspired by this page. The general consensus is that this page is strong and accurate. While some people have clarifying questions about the content or wording the author uses, it seems like most readers are on board with the presentation of the information.

My overall impressions of the article is that it is well written, touching on all the appropriate subject matter, and not showing any red flags of a poor Wikipedia page. Perhaps there is room for improvement in the conciseness of the article, but this is not a big takeaway for me.