User:Bellamila13/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Disorganized offender

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am really interested in the different types of offenders and also hope to study this more in my career. I believe that this article has some strong points, but there could be some clarification and organization added to help the reader.

Evaluate the article
Lead: There is a strong first introductory sentence, but I want to add a few more key details to it. I will be creating sections and providing an introduction sentence about them in the lead. I want to make sure the lead is detailed but not overdoing it.

Content: Most of the article’s content is relevant to the topic, but there are a few sentences that don’t seem to fit well into the piece. The content is up-to-date but is very simplified. There are crucial details that are missing in the article, and I plan to add those in my draft. The tone/phrasing of some of the sentences doesn’t work well, and I believe that there is a better way to represent disorganized offenders.

Tone/Balance: As mentioned above, the article is mainly neutral but has some examples where there are specific undertones to them that I would want to edit. The article doesn’t try to persuade anyone, but a few sentences need to be reworded in order to keep a neutral perspective. I also don’t like using the words “usually” or “mostly” because it is vague, so I will be reviewing word choice as well.

Sources: There are very few sources. One of them is a book based on the author’s experience with these individuals, which may be seen as biased. The other source is more neutral and scientific. I believe this topic needs more representation than this, and I’m planning on adding more neutral studies and sources about the topic. One article is current while the other is a bit outdated. I found a few sources that are more updated and also have unbiased information that I will be adding. One of the links works, while the other is a bit tricker (I will be looking into that more as well).

Organization: There are no sections in this article, and I believe it would be more useful to break the information up. The phrasing is concise and easy to read. There are very few grammatical errors and the writing itself is strong, but has room for improvement.

Images: There are no photos on this page, but I also understand that because this topic is hard to represent in an image. I will be looking into some photos, but this article is much more tricky to add an image for.

Talk page: Most of the comments were mainly grammatical fixes and other smaller fixes for the article. There are no ratings on this page but it is part of a WikiProject.

Overall: There are a few authors on this page, but the piece is still mostly underdeveloped. The concise nature of the article is something I appreciate, and the specific examples also add to the reader’s definition. I would say that this piece has some strong points, but there are many areas where additional details would really strengthen the article.