User:Carina gomez01/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.


 * Comparative law; Comparative law
 * I chose this article because i am interested in law so i thought picking an article that has something i am in interested in would be a good idea.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it explains what comparative law is.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything in the lead seems to be in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is neither concise or overly detailed, it can be a little more detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There should be a link on the "the role of court precedents" that explains what precedents is because the wording can be confusing be a precedent is already what the court ruled so adding "the role of court" to precedents can be confusing or it can not make sense, depending on your knowledge on law terminology.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? Neither over represented or underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, some of the law terminology used is incorrect or doesn't make sense.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has two pictures and it doesn't really help the understanding of the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? One of the pictures is well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, i believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? None
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is someone's essay.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It doesn't.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is a good article, it just can use some detailing with certain wordings.
 * What are the article's strengths? The author knew what he/she was talking about and the reader can tell, the author had some knowledge of the law terminology.
 * How can the article be improved? Some of the law terminology used doesn't make sense, so how the author uses the law terminology correctly could be improved.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is very well developed, just has some errors in grammar(law terminology).

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: