User:DigiStudiesProf/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Conference on College Composition and Communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This article shows up as a Category:C-Class Academic Journal articles entry. The top of the page contains warnings related to adding source citation and verification. There are also opportunities for editing the article, noted below.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Notes below are pasted into the article evaluation.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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?
 * This description does not identify the sections that will be discussed in the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * It does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * It is.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It is not.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It seems applicable to the topic. I will research how other entries on similar topics are written.
 * 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 address equity gaps/underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


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

The topic could perhaps better support its claims around its size and work.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * 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?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The entry has 27 sources at the moment, but they're almost all from the same source (CCCC). The sources are generally current--or, that is, current enough for the topic.

That said, it seems reasonable to fact-check the article for accuracy; for example, whether committees are still three-year appointments. It could also be beneficial to explain the benefit of the significance of these committees.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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?

In terms of organization and writing quality, the article is generally well-written.

Images and Media

 * 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?

There is only one image. Are other images available? It would be interesting to investigate if there are recordings of chair's addresses, for example.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * 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?

While this isn't a topic we've discussed in class, the CCCC does relate to literacy as a professional organization influential in literacy discussions.

The talk page does not contain much discussion, except that the CCCC chair's address page was merged into this topic, which I think seems appropriate for Wikipedia practice as the CCCC's chair's address may not have sufficient notability.

Overall impressions

 * 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, the article contains a good introduction to the CCCC.

Its introduction could be strengthened with a brief overview of the upcoming topics, which would further define the CCCC.

The article could be strengthened with more diverse sources, which will necessitate research. The Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition could be one source for documenting CCCC. The CCCC chair's address article was removed in 2013, but could perhaps be merged into this article with better sourcing.

Additional sources have been added since the warning tags in 2013/2015