User:Disabilitymuseum/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: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

No, the lead sentence fails to capture the historic significance of the institution. It has an inaccuracy in it too, about who it was intended for. The Lead fails to describe the major sections.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Although the content is all relevant, it emphasizes matters such as "Construction and Design" at the expense of the institution's social importance and place in human rights history. The content can and should be updated slightly. There is missing content, such as the three major lawsuits that contributed to disability rights, and the nature of the abuse and neglect that brought about its closure.


 * 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?

Content evaluation
D

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral and does not lean toward any particular advocacy position.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

References are adequate for the material, but many more are needed to lead readers to sources about the conditions at Pennhurst and the social and legal actions that evolved around it.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The writing is fair and factual. The sections, however, bear no discernible resemblance or parallel to the history or importance of various aspects of the facility's history.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

Images are reasonable, but one or more images of (1) evidence of abuses (2) the community homes generated by Pennhurst exodus and (3) the demolition of parts of the campus.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page contains some good commentary, but mostly nitpicking and trivial. There is no discussion of the need to communicate the struggle for humane treatment and rights that took place there. I see efforts to remove advocacy insertions, which is good. The site is part of several major WikiProjects.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Needs significant work. Strength is accuracy. Weaknesses are in need for a coherent outline and structure, balancing important topics, adding legal history, describing where the people went when it closed, and adding to the modern use of the property. All in all, the article was poorly developed as of January 2020.


 * 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?

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: