User:Connor.new/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: Economic History
 * I chose this because I am interested in the history of economics and finance.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes is does and is well written.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does it introduces the main major sections that is further explained.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it includes everything talked about in the major overview. However, one section of the article seems to be constantly edited and changed.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and explains that the article will talk about the history of economics but not history of world economics.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article goes into detail about what economics is and how the original idea of economics was invented.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the content is up to date all of the content and descriptions about the history of economics are correct.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There was missing content on some of the topics. I created a link to one of the missing contents. The description of the British Economic history was missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the economic history is historically unrepresented and was written by multiple editors that may or may have not been historically accurate.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral and there is persuasion. However, the article was written about historical events and timelines so it is more historically accurate.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not necessarily, this is a historical article. so there is no heavily biased claims or explanations toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The view points are more under presented I feel like because there are more links to explain the meanings and topics then the original editor actually had.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, again this is a historical article not a topic that would be persuasive or attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I believe so, from what I found the secondary sources would be other articles or books or authors on information about the history of economics and relate to the topic.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are thorough and back up and reflect the related topics in the article
 * Are the sources current? No, the sources are not current most sources that are posted are multiple years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes,there is a diverse section of authors that have a history or knowledge of economics or finance.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work, at least the link I checked and tested worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is well-written and is clear and easy to understand and read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were a few spelling errors that were corrected by other editors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is well organized for the most part. It is split into sections that explain the main topic and the early history of economics.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Somewhat, the image used depicts different global economies and how they have changed in value over time.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the images have clear labeling and explaining underneath them.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, for the most part it is relevant to the topic and appealing to the eye with multiple colors and not covering any of the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? It seems that this article had been in the works between a few editors, in recent times only minor edits were being made to the page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is part of the Economics WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This topic that Wikipedia discusses differ from what we have talked about because it focuses on the history of economics and not language but also talks about the origin which is similar to topics we have discussed in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is a published article. The last post on the talk page and edits were earlier this year. previous edits and discussions span over multiple years past.
 * What are the article's strengths? The articles strengths are the lead and the sources. Its organization and sub-topics are not super well explained or talked about however, they flow with the article.
 * How can the article be improved? i believe the article can be written about a little more and include other sub-topics about the history of economics. Such as, including explanations for GDP and furthering the explanation of current economies as well.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I believe this article is almost well-developed however, it could use more sub-topics description to add more content as a large overview of the history of economics.

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: