User:Ejazmin00/Evaluate an Article

Article Evaluations for: Education in California (AREA article) & Prevention Science (SECTOR article)

Which article are you evaluating?
I have evaluated the articles: Education in California and Prevention Science.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen to evaluate the selected articles because they resonate with my current research and I can both learn and contribute to/from the conversation topics.

Evaluate the article
Article Evaluation for: Education in California (AREA article)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes!
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Sort of, some topics are mentioned some are not.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, the lead includes information that is in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * In my opinion, the lead could be more detailed.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, most statistics are reflective of the early/mid 2000’s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I feel this history portion is missing some segments of how the American education system came to be.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes it touches on disparities of school funding.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, I feel the article pulls information from a single area; San Jose. A few different area examples would have been helpful.
 * Are minority or fringe (critical) viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some more than others.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * From my brief search on google scholar it appears there are more recent  and detailed works that can be incorporated.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I found
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * A few
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * No conversations, but I do see this page is in collaboration with a Wiki Education assignment labeled: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as a C, and is in collaboration with WikiProject California and Wiki Project Education
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It discusses disparities but not where they stem from or how to mend them. In class we identify the root issue causing disparities and what we can do about it.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is top/high priority; it is a highly ranked article on Wikipedia.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is clear, concise, and neutral.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More detail, more perspectives.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Based on my knowledge of how different the education system is for everyone depending on location, class, and ethnicity, I would say the article is underdeveloped in highlighting these differences and in need of more information.

Article Evaluation for: Prevention Science (SECTOR article)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes!
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes!
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, the lead includes information that is in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is perfectly detailed and concise.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, most content is reflective of the late 1980’s and early/mid 2000’s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All content shared is very relevant and helpful.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, the topic is discussed in an umbrella format.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, I would have preferred the article touched more upon Prevention Science among BIPOC populations.

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?


 * No


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Semi.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not really.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * From my brief search on google scholar it appears there are more recent and detailed works that can be incorporated.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I found
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * A fellow scholar wrote about how certain details included in the articles, such as details from a case study, confused them as a reader.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as a C, and is in collaboration with WikiProject Science and Wiki Project Disaster Management
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It discusses the disparities but not where they stem from. In class we identify the root issue causing disparities, in order to better understand what we can do to support.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article is ranked low; it has low traction on Wikipedia.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is very informative, clear, and concise.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More perspectives.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is very well-developed, and packed with relevant information.