User:Ccarson2/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: Social science
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am a sociology major and that falls under the social science category, that’s what was interesting

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, topics about studies of societies
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
This article describes what is involved with the article and he society studies it involves. The major sections in this article are linked to its section. All information that is present in the lead are in the article with no missing content. The lead is concise because it shows all the topics within this text and defines social science, it doesn’t go into more detail than that.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes about the topics within social science
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it’s been recently updated
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
This article has topics that related to the subject of social science. Wiki editors have been contributing to keep this article up-to-date. With there being an array of people involved, the content is in the right places.

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 overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall content of this article is not trying to sway the reader to one side or the other. Each individual topic of social science is not discussed as being better than one or the other. The viewpoints are just facts with cited sources.

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 and no
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The information in this article is reliable and it reflects the topic in the article. Some of the sources are from this century, including 2020, and some are from the early 1900s. The links work to go to the citation and references.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
This article uses easy to read language and it’s information is easily understandable. With many contributors to editing this page there are no errors spelling wise or grammatically. The sections are broken down into the topics related to social science. Each has the links leading topics involved.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The images used in this article are mostly of people involved in social sciences, therefore, it doesn’t help one to understand more about it, just the people involved in the topic. The images are captioned to either be the person presented in the picture and scenes of events are described well too. No copyright regulations have been infringed upon. The images are laid out in the section it needs to be, it is pushed to the outside edge to not mess with written content making it visually pleasing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The sciences of social science
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-Class and yes
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Adding more material

Talk page evaluation
The conversations are mostly people talking about the individual sciences in the article topic. Further explaining it to be more accurate and content filled for readers. The article is rated in the C-Class and is a part of multiple WikiProjects. These discussions are about adding more material rather than the edit for citation or spelling/grammar errors.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Active
 * What are the article's strengths? Individual topics
 * How can the article be improved? More current sources
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Good

Overall evaluation
This article is a current and active article with many contributors. It focuses on individual topics with good detail. This article could be improved by adding more up-to-date sources. There are a few articles from the 1920s and 1930s, new information could be brought in. This article is informative and well-developed, one could learn about the social sciences with this article.

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: Talk:Social science