User:Celerysticks/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: Going postal (Going postal)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Learned about the origins of the slang in another sociology class I'm in.

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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

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? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The article does not address topics dealing with underrepresented topics.

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? It does not provide background as to why workplace violence occurs frequently at United States postal offices.
 * 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
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There is a wide variety of source material, but I didn't check the demographics of the authors behind each source.
 * 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? Definitely
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Absolutely

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? No (only one image).

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Wording of the article is often addressed.
 * 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? Page was not talked about in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths? The chronology of USPS workplace violence is well organized.
 * How can the article be improved? Include more pictures, explore different theories that might provide explanation behind these reoccurring events.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Decently developed.

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: