User:Dpratchler/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Causation (sociology)

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.)

Evaluate the article
LEAD SECTION

The article contains an introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic though it could be revised to for more clarity. The lead sentence is as follows “Causation is a belief that events occur in predictable ways and that one event leads to another” (Wikipedia 2022a). While this does capture some of the key elements of causation, by revising the sentence to introduce temporal order first and the predictable nature of outcomes second the sentence conveys the concept in a more linear manner. Secondly, the lead fails to reference how causation, as a broader concept, might inform individual conceptions of cause. The article includes a brief description of one of the major sections but fails to reference the other major section on functionalist theory. While the lead, to some degree, is expanded upon within the article, it could be further fleshed out in additional sections (for a clearer demonstration of causality as a conceptual term). The lead is sufficiently concise, considering its content, though with a bit of tweaking it could maintain its brevity whilst vastly improving its quality.

CONTENT

The article's content, as it stands, is mostly relevant to the topic of causation. For example, by adding a reference to its conceptual significance in broader terms the article could lead off with a section explaining the basic logic underpinning causality as well as any of the implications of causal thought. By leading with a general section it would lead better into current (and potentially future) sections which examine causality from specific theoretical perspectives. For the most part, the content of the article is up-to-date as the logical formation of causation (i.e. a change in x inducing a consequent change in y) and the theories of major sociologists aren’t subject to change. The section on functionalist theories of causation contains a few secondary sources on functionalist causality, indicating that similar sections on theoretical conceptions of causality could be added to the article. There is no content that is overtly missing, however, the article could certainly be expanded upon with more sources and theoretical perspectives. Content could also be added centering on how causality has influenced development in culture and thought, particularly in terms of knowledge production. The article deals with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps as it concerns academic content. Due to barriers cited by Wikipedia surrounding academic content (i.e. paywall sources), the article is significantly underdeveloped. Both the talk page and the project's rating as stub-class in several wikiprojects support this notion. The article does not directly address a topic that relates to historically underrepresented populations or topics, but is a valuable opportunity to synthesize and distribute currently developed (but not readily accessible) information.

TONE AND BALANCE

Overall the article maintains a passive and neutral tone. There is, to some degree, a skew towards more niche sociological perceptions of causality rather than the arguably, more significant, logical underpinnings of the concept. Similarly, while there are no specific claims that appear biased, the overall tone and size of the article could be better balanced with future revisions. It could be said that, due to its size, the functionalist viewpoint is overrepresented, though this is more symptomatic of its underdevelopment rather than any sort of overt bias. No viewpoints are described as minority or fringe within the article and I do not believe that it would be called for currently; if more theoretical perspectives were added in the future this could become necessary. Finally, the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of certain positions though, again, this might become an issue with further development of the article and future sections.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Not all of the facts in the article appear to be backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. For example, the sentence directly following the lead states that “If the relationship between the variables is non-spurious (there is a third variable that is not causing the effect), the temporal order is in line (cause before effect), and the study is longitudinal, it may be deduced that it is a causal relationship” (Wikipedia 2022a). While this is certainly true, it is lacking a reliable secondary source (i.e. course textbook explaining causality) for readers to attribute the fact too. The other major sections of the article seem to be sufficiently cited. The sources largely consist of secondary writings on functionalist theorists as well as undergraduate sociology textbooks. The article could be improved by including currently available writings from other theoretical perspectives or discussion from upper level or more recent texts. Of the few sources cited within the article, the majority are relatively dated as they are from the early 200’s. This, however, might have been an appropriate choice depending on when the sources were added in the articles history. While several citations are dated they still may be valuable for the article with the addition of more recent supporting citations. The authors are fairly concentrated within scholarly works, though this is anticipated due to the academic nature of the article. The article could be improved by including historically marginalized perspectives (i.e. feminist and critical theory). I believe that, overall, the quality of the sources is sufficient, though in some cases they could be improved. In the case of outdated textbooks, there could be relatively newer ones foun. In the case of the functionalist section, more recent citations could be added to increase the robustness of its citations list. In a similar sense citations in future sections would benefit from drawing on a wider variety of sources and perspectives. Lastly, only one of the citations employs a clickable hyperlink. The link leads directly to a Wikipedia web page with direct links to the ISBN on several major platforms (i.e. google books). The rest of the citations lack clickable links but this is likely due to the fact that they are academic sources and are not freely hosted online. The article could be improved by adding more citations, particularly from minority perspectives, that users can interact with and further their learning.

ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY

The article, for the most part, is well written as it is relatively clear, concise, and easy to read. There is room for structural improvement to revise text to be clearer and more succinct. For example, this passage is featured in the article “For rules to work society must be held accountable for their actions. all societies excluding animalistic ones have a concept of causality. Causality imposes moral obligations” (Wikipedia 2022a) These fragments could be revised into one or two more comprehensive sentences. I believe that this type of restructuring would go a long way towards better conveying the importance and implications of causation. The article has a few immediately apparent grammatical and spelling errors. For example, the article states that “human society exercises social control and keeping (SIC) society functional by enforcing rules. Also there are slight grammar mistakes riddled throughout like uncapitalized letters at the start of sentences. Restructuring and careful revisal would go a long way to eliminate these types of mistakes and establish a more concise and consistent passive voice across sections. The article is currently broken down into two major sections: “A functionalist theory of causation” and “Logical formulation of the principle of productive causality.” These sections reflect several of the major points of causation; the addition of new major sections, however, would go a long way to further developing the article. Potential section topics include additional theoretical perspectives and insight into the implications of causality.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

The article includes nothing in the way of images or captions to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. This is likely due to the fact that causation is a relatively abstract concept that doesn't lend itself particularly well to stock photographs. This is further exacerbated by the requirement for images to adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations which differ significantly from academic terms of use. The article could be improved by adding original artwork outlining the logical formula for causation or by using similar preexisting works that adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.

TALK PAGE DISCUSSION

There is little in the way of active discussion on the articles talk page. There are two comments both made in 2011, one in September and one in July and both under the heading “suggestions.” The July post suggests adding a few references, expanding on how causality affects society, and better defining the concept. The September comment merely points out that the page is underdeveloped and requires “way more research done than what is already done” (Wikipedia 2022b). The lack of discussion on the article's direction is reflected in its fragmented and underdeveloped nature. The article is rated as stub-class and low-importance by the three WikiProjects it is included in: Wikiproject Psychology, WikiProject Sociology, and WikiProject Economics. It has also previously been the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation course assignment similar to the one being conducted for 303. The way Wikipedia discusses the topic is significantly different to in-class discussions in that it is much less comprehensive, certain viewpoints are either entirely missing or severely underdeveloped. Secondly, there is little in the way of collaborative engagement within the talk page, inhibiting the development of the article.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

I agree with the article's current rating as stub class as it currently lacks enough content to warrant anything above; I do, however, disagree with its rating of low importance. The significance of causality, which has demonstrably informed positivistic thinking and is central to key theories, is seemingly unrecognized by its low importance rating. I believe that, with further development, it could be a keystone article that could aid future sociological inquiry and development. The article's current strengths is the strong base that current edits have established. The thoughts that the article currently conveys do explain causality but could be revised and built upon to do so in a more clear and concise manner. The first steps to improving the article involve a restructuring of the current content and the addition of new sections exploring non-functionalist theory and the implications of causality. Overall, I would assess the article as underdeveloped and, in some aspects, poorly developed. The quality of the article, however, is ultimately a reflection of the lack of activity rather than the efforts of contributors. With more active discussion and collaboration the article could quickly become a well-developed Wikipedia article.