User:Brehbrian/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: Racial inequality in the United States
 * I decided to choose my article because of the relevance it has toward my Practice Experience for my minor: Global Poverty and Practice. Also as a business major, I want to pursue a finance related career so exploring different avenues of finance has affected the lives of others is crucial. I want to further understand the difficulties that individuals of color have experienced in order to reach a stabilized future.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - The lead contains the definition of the Racial Inequality in the United States. This overview is necessary to understand what the article further goes into depth about and to have a clear understanding of how the authors "define inequality".
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - The lead includes a hyper-linked chart to describe the topics that are touched upon while view racial inequality in the United States. This makes searching for relevant information quicker.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - The lead is pretty concise keeping all the information relevant.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - concise!

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - The article's content spans of over 10 sections keeping every single one to the point and informative.
 * Is the content up-to-date? - The content was last updated on February 18th 2020, so it seems that the information is constantly being updated and monitored.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - One aspect of the content that would be useful to include is possible the employment differences between an individual of color vs. White. This would draw perspective to one of the main financial contrasts that the wealth gap is based on.

Content evaluation
9/10

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? - the article is written in a neutral perspective so that it isn't biased toward agreeing or disagreeing with what is presented.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - there are few claims that seemed biased but upon further inspection, they are simply modeled to serve as representatives for each opposing positions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - The viewpoints are overrepresented, which is great to further understand each side.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - at times there is a persuasive voice in agreeing with all the information that is presented which leaves out the disagreeing viewpoint of the racial wealth gap in the United States.

Tone and balance evaluation
8.5/10

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - There is a plenty of sources to choose from!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - they all come from various sources which makes for an interesting article to read, this allows readers to gain a multitude of viewpoints about how the topic is discussed.
 * Are the sources current? - the sources are constantly being updated
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - all links work!

Sources and references evaluation
10/10

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - the language in the article is not confusing in any manner and easy to read for someone with no current knowledge of the topic.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? - none
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - This is the most important aspect of the article that stood out whilst reading. Everything is organized in a manner that allows the topic to transition smoothly.

Organization evaluation
10/10

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - There are no images associated with the article
 * Are images well-captioned? - n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - n/a

Images and media evaluation
0/10

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? - most of the conversations held are toward the betterment of the article through recommendations and reviews.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - The article is related to WikiProjects by being within the bounds of the Discrimination column that Wikipedia is trying to tackle
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? - Not to much, the information is similar in the way that it is presented and discussed.

Talk page evaluation
8/10

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? - Informative, I'm glad that this information is being discussed in open areas that we all can come to an understanding about the systematic differences that are imposed.
 * What are the article's strengths? - the strengths that the article brings is it's diverse range of topics to analyze the racial wealth gap. It creates opportunities for the reader to gain a holistic view on the subject and about other ways it is seen in others.
 * How can the article be improved? - through the inclusion of more perspectives and opinoins.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - it is well-crafted but can always use more sources to expand the perspective it gives to audience members.

Overall evaluation
9.5/10