User:Celinewherritt/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: Disability rights movement
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose to develop this article because it is written from an American perspective, and thus it may not reflect a proper global view. Additionally, my practice experience for my Global Poverty and Practice minor focuses on disability rights, so I chose to expand on the historical background and obstacles of disability equity.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does, and it provides links to other related terms such as "equal opportunity." It then provides general types of equal treatment violations.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead contains a table of contents that each has their own introductory descriptions.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all the information presented in the table of contents is present somewhere in the article. It provides many citations to all of the information presented as well.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is generally concise, but there is definitely an imbalance of information for domestic policies (specifically, within the United States) and other countries. Specifically, there are multiple pages of information for the United States, but a mere paragraph for Canada and the United Kingdom.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic, detailing subjects like the "R-Word" Campaign and adaptive technologies that are becoming increasingly popular in the workplace today. It also discusses discrimination in the workplace and other environments, which is very prevalent in society regardless of nation.
 * Is the content up-to-date? This article provides a thorough historical view, but there are very few details and facts that go beyond the early 2000s. More specifically, it doesn't provide updates of disability movements and campaigns, and it fails to discuss how adaptive technologies have developed over time. After all, our technology has significantly improved since the early 2000s, so this deserves some attention on the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? This article hardly discusses legal barriers to achieving equity, if at all. In fact, it does not really discuss a lot of the contention and partisan divisiveness associated with this issue, such as the concept of providing free healthcare or rehabilitation facilities for people with disabilities.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? This article manages to remain neutral by only presenting historical data and defining relevant terms. Additionally, it does not prescribe action that should be taken by governments, but rather discusses different views from germane parties (i.e. the medical perspective, social activists, etc.)
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article does not seem heavily biased towards a particular position, as it only acknowledges the inequalities suffered by those with disabilities. One way it can be improved is to represent the corporate perspective and defenses for not accommodating for workers' needs. Overall, though, it will discuss if a topic is controversial and present the perspectives of both sides.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The Lead thoroughly discusses viewpoints from social activism, but the voice of legal actors are underrepresented in this article. Additionally, it briefly mentions lawsuits and what corporations are being sued for, but it fails to provide the defense that corporations provide, and it may not post a result.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I don't think it attempts to persuade the reader in any way, but it does phrase the article to seem as if this is global disability rights, when in fact most of the information is immediately pertinent to rights within the United States.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? From the various sources that I checked, one of the sources didn't actually show a PDF because it stated that the domain will be published soon. Another source was a promotional link to buy CBD, and contained no substantive information about disability rights whatsoever. A lot of links don't have any content to load, so the sources cited page could definitely be improved.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is very well-written and contains language that is easy for the everyday person to understand. If there is a word that requires knowledgable expertise, it provides context, definition, and source for you to refer to.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I have not seen any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? This article is relatively well-organized, with an easy Table of Content to refer back to. It also details a few of the different disabilities and how they are hindered/discriminated against in society.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? At the top of the page, it provides a useful image that depicts code signs for people with visual disabilities. It also provides a photo of one of the protests in the Scottish Parliament, but some of the words are not visible.
 * Are images well-captioned? It provides a good context of what the images are, but I would like a better background of why it's relevant. For the coding image, I would have liked to see it in bigger font so I can depict what it's actually saying.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * 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? There has been relatively little conversation, most of the edits have changed the phrasing or added sources to legitimize their claim.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is not featured or rated super highly because it has a warning that this article may not represent global views.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia discusses it with reference to social activism and the barriers to achieving equity. On the other hand, I've discussed more niche discussions like law enforcement and affirmative action, which are much more current debates at hand.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This article's overall status is acceptable.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is good at providing a general overview and defining necessary terms. It also excels in providing plenty of background information for disability rights in the United States
 * How can the article be improved? This article can be improved by balancing the discussion amongst other countries, not just 3 large and developed countries. I think it would be an interesting discussion to detail how participatory action can be implemented, as well as how rehabilitation for these groups have shown to improve or hinder society.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would rank the article as underdeveloped. It is pretty brief, and most of the sources are not valid or legitimate. On a positive note, though, it does not make any assumptions or biased statements that attempts to persuade a reader in one direction.

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:Disability rights movement