User:DubiousDoubt/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cameralism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Because it is in the Social Science field, which my class uses.

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.)

The article appears to be a quality article. It has a very good lead section that quickly summarizes the main points, with a bit more detail if one wants to read on. It is a good mix of conciseness and detail.

The content is relevant to the topic, and is very up to date, for 18th century political concepts. And does not appear to be missing any major sections of content. It does not appear address topics related to historically underrepresented populations however.

The article is written in an academic style, which makes sense because it is an academic topic. As such, it is written from a very neutral tone and does not appear to be very biased toward a particular point of view. There is very little attempts at persuasion, it is more an informative tone.

The sources appear to be excellent, with lots of references to old and more modern academic work in and on the field. And a spot check of the links show they are what they claim, and are valid. I don't think there can be better sources than academic journals, which is what most of the references are.

The organization and writing quality is good and reasonable. The writing quality feels similar to an academic article.

The article does not include any media, which could be a thing to improve the page.

The talk page does mention a smaller mistake that the page should fix. The page does not ever give a formal definition of the concept. This page is a part of 3 other wiki projects, which is interesting. This page forms the basis of a small part of some economics and politics in Germany, especially around the 1800s.

Related to this, my overall impressions of the page are that they are good, and it does have some good parts like reflecting academic works in sourcing, organization, and tone. As discussed however, the article could be improved with some images and diagrams helping to explain the concept. And the article needs a clear and formal definition of the concept, more formal that what we have currently. I would rate it as a quality page, but still needs some obvious improvement. The strengths of the article are the academic tone and quality and number of sources, as well as the formatting.