User:Cw1120/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: Presentence investigation report
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: We are evaluating this article for class, as it is a genre that we have learned about and discussed. It also seems like this genre is useful for better understanding the issues with content gaps and how genres may change as the needs of the situation change.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The initial sentence is a little long and clunky, it seems like there should be a more concise or clear way to summarize the topic. It also seems unclear if the first sentence is talking about the report or the actual investigation. The Lead is only two sentences long and thus, does not accurately provide all of the information needed to summarize the topic or describe the article's major sections. The second sentence also contains information about additional uses that does not appear to be mentioned in the rest of the article. I do not think that this Lead is concise or overly-detailed and I think that it should be one of the first things that is revised with this article. A Lead helps the reader understand what will talked about in the rest of the article, and this Lead does not coherently give that information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
It seems that the content is mostly relevant to the topic, however it is missing some important content. It seems like the history section is missing information or is disorganized, in that some of the information is more about what PSI reports look like. I also think that there should be inclusion of how the report has changed over the years. There is also some information about importance or necessity throughout the article which is not sourced. There is also some content that could be seen as contradictory, such as information about when the interview takes place. It seems like it includes information about biases in this type of report that have been reported, but it could be improved by adding more cited references to this issue. In addition, it does not seem to address how might the bias or "hearsay" affect the defendants.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I think that this article is trying to be neutral. I think that there are some points on the side of the prosecutor can lead towards being overrepresented, with little information coming from the defendant side. I don't think that the article necessarily tries to persuade. However, there is definitely adverbs used that lean to one side or another, and seem to not be cited. This lack of citation leads to issues with the neutral tone and makes the article seem unreliable.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources do not seem to be up-to-date, with the most recent source being from 2010. I think that there could definitely be additions to this source list, as there as surely been more recent literature on this topic. Most of the sources seem to work and connect to reputable documents. I think that the sources include a variety of types of documents, but not necessarily a variety of authors.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
There seems to be a level of disorganization across sections, specifically that some information is not in the correct section. For example, there is a sentence at the beginning of the "Interview of defendant" section that more broadly addresses the topic of preparation. There also seems to be some sentences in which there is awkward grammatical structure or sentences that are not complete. Further, there is not consistent naming of the report throughout the article, or even consistency on whether this article is about the report or the investigation. There also seems to be a disorganization on the sentence-level. I would also suggest that the article be re-organized to better reflect the main points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or other media in this article. I think that it could be useful to include though. For example, one could add a picture of the "founder" of probation officers or charts on how these PSI reports affect different sentences.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There only seems to be two comments on the talk page

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


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

Overall evaluation
There seems to be a warning at the top of the page, noting that the sources or information are not balanced across opinions. I think that the first way to improve this article would be to find more sources/information and add them in a more balanced way. I think the strength of the article comes from the preparation section, since it gives a lot of valuable information. However, I think that the article overall needs to be revised to include more cited information, as well as better organization. I also think that some points should be rewritten to be more concise and to flow better. I think that this article is underdeveloped for this reason.

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:Presentence investigation report