User:Dowhannah/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating Politics in education from Wikipedia.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article to evaluate because it is centered around a topic that I am very interested in and that I am currently learning more about.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The introductory sentence seems to be get straight to a point, rather than offering a broad overview of the topic.
 * There are no major sections in the article besides the lead, so there is no preface given to other sections.
 * The lead does not include information that is not in the rest of the article.
 * The lead is too detailed; there needs to be more sections about the topic.

Content


 * The content is relevant to the topic.
 * The content is not up to date; the only cited references date back to 2002 and 2003. There may have been developments in the field since those resources were published.
 * There are not viewpoints presented so much as just general, basic facts.
 * There is a lot of content that is missing. Politics in education is such a broad topic, and I feel that there could be examples of issues in politics, court decisions that have been crucial to the development of politics in education, and discussion or mention of current issues / popular debates.
 * This article could deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps. With elaboration and examples of issues, it could shed light on the history of why underrepresented groups are marginalized specifically by politics in education.

Tone and Balance


 * The article is neutral.
 * There are no claims that appear heavily based on a particular position, except the third paragraph seems to be based on personal evaluation of significance.
 * There are no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints; limited viewpoints are given to begin with.
 * There are no minority viewpoints given, but there are not really any viewpoints offered at all.
 * The article does not seem to persuade the reader towards one position or the other.

Sources and References


 * Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable source. The comparison of macro- vs. micro-politics has no cited sources and there is no evidence to support the existence of debates surrounding "politics of education vs. politics in education."
 * The sources do reflect available literature on the topic about twenty years ago. They should be updated.
 * The sources are not current.
 * The sources are not written by a diverse array of authors. Historically marginalized authors are not referenced.
 * There are better sources available because the ones provided are outdated.
 * The links in the article do work properly.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The language in the article is clear and easy to read.
 * There are no grammar / mechanics issues in the article. I may suggest adding a comma or two.
 * The article does not have sections breaking down the topic, so I can not offer commentary on the quality of organization.

Images and Media


 * There are no images included to help the reader's understanding of the topic.
 * There are no images, so I can not comment on the quality of the captions.
 * There are no images, so I can not comment on their adherence to Wikipedia's copyright policies.
 * There are no images, so I can not comment on whether or not they are laid out in an appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion


 * The conversations in the article's Talk Page are mostly posted evaluations (from others in similar education courses), rather than conversations about the actual topic itself.
 * This article is rated as a stub. It is not a part of any Wiki Projects.
 * This article is much more limited in its discussion of the topic, compared to our discussion of it in class. We go into more depth on a daily basis than this continuously posted articles does.

Overall Impressions


 * The article's overall status is that is in desperate need of updated sources, as well as added content. It limits the discussion of the topic tremendously.
 * The article's strength is that it is a very basic foundation that can be easily expanded upon.
 * The article can be improved by adding more sections, images, links, and overall content.
 * I would assess the article's completeness as poorly developed.