User:Blake.allison/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: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead
"Social Stratification"

I chose this article because the subject sociology interests me along with the theory of social stratification.


 * 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
Yes, it does, it clearly describes what social stratification is and what factors contribute to it.

Yes, it clearly states the major sections of the article.

No, it does not contain anything that is not in the article.

The Lead is very concise, and explains the purpose of the article.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Yes, all the content in the article is relevant to social stratification.

Yes, I think the content is up-to-date.

I think this article has everything it needs, but I would take out the paragraphs about "Kinship-orientation" just because I don't think it really relates to social stratification enough.

No, I feel as if it doesn't address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. I think it does address the topics related to historically underrepresented topics.

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
Yes, the article is neutral.

No, this article is very definition based so there are not many opinions.

I think the historical part of this was a little overrepresented, but other than that I think everything else was fairly represented.

No it does not, it is very definition based and no persuasion is needed.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Yes, they are. They are cited at the end of the article.

Yes, the sources are very thorough.

Some are not current, but most are.

Yes, each source has a different author and written with different information.

Yes, they worked.

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
Yes, I think this article is very concise and clear.

No, I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors.

Yes, it is very well organized.

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
Yes, the article has a few images that enhance the understanding.

Yes, all images are well-captioned and cited.

Yes they do.

Yes, they are with their right paragraph captioned well.

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
None.

It has upper ratings. No it is not.

It doesn't really differ, it discusses the topic very thoroughly. In class, you would ask for our opinions and this article doesn't.

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
The overall status of this article is good.

The article's strengths are its introduction and its conclusion.

The article can be improved by by maybe making it shorter, and getting to the point.

I think the article is very well-developed, and well written.

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: