User:Dnh22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mainstreaming

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I was mainstreamed so I feel familiar enough to evaluate the content as a practice run at evaluating. My preliminary impression was that it has good foundation but needs attention still.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The information is not presented concisely.
 * The summarizing should be revised to be more coherent.

Content


 * The article covers many pros and cons to the topic.
 * The article provides different perspectives on the topic.
 * The article produces a section to acknowledge the unique challenges for deaf students in a mainstreaming education setting.
 * The content in the deaf section could contain better links to relevant articles relating to deafness.

Tone and Balance


 * The special issues for the deaf section might be overrepresented in comparison to the article as a whole.
 * The balance of the "negatives" is off due to the amount of information included.
 * Article may be better served acknowledging the special issues for deaf students and then linking to a separate more comprehensive article.

Sources and References


 * The sources are mostly relevant, with a few that seem to be older foundational sources in the subject.
 * Overall the sources feel relevant and of quality.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The article is well organized in structure.
 * Sections of the article need structural revision, but not the article as a whole.
 * The writing quality still needs improvement.
 * The article does not use concise language.

Images and Media


 * Only one image.
 * The image is small and seems placed at random.
 * The image caption is not concise.
 * The image is marginally related to the article, and is not helped by lack of supporting images throughout.

Talk Page Discussion


 * C-class rated with High Importance by WikiProject Education, WikiProject Deaf, and WikiProject Autism.
 * C-class rated by WikiProject Disability.
 * Overhaul of the page to better match Wikipedia standards started in 2007 by Rosmoran.
 * Complaint made about POV in 2011.
 * No sources were provided to make edits, though requested.
 * Discussion seems to be aware of weaknesses and additions still needed.
 * Talk Page has not been added to since 2018.
 * Editing is still happening as of January 19, 2021.

Overall Impressions

The article has a foundation that has been shaped to match Wikipedia guidelines. However, the article still needs editing and discussion on direction of the page's future format. The information presented does include neutral tone, however is not weighted evenly. There is an uneven balance to the information presented in the various sections of the article. There needs to be further discussion on which elements of the article are appropriately included and which elements need to be revised, relocated, or removed. The article is also unnecessarily prolix in many sections.

Future work should be done to address the wordiness of many sections of the article, the direction of the articles future format in the Talk Page, the inclusion and linking of appropriate related pages on Wikipedia, and adding more visual information.

~