User:Elises06/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

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?
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly 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?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

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


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

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

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?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Which article are you evaluating?
Economic model

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because of my interest in Economics and to gain a better sense of how economists use models to make predictions. I wanted to determine the usefulness of models, along with learning about the different kinds of models economists use. Learning about how the economy works is important, so I thought it would be practical to evaluate an article that focuses on economic models, especially since I have studied economics in school courses multiple times.

Evaluate the article
The lead section effectively introduces and defines economic models. The first sentence defines what an economic model is, which provides clear insight into what the rest of the article will be about. There is not a brief description of the article's major sections in the lead section other than what is included in the table of contents, but the lead section does address the various aspects included in economic models and highlights what these models are used for. All the information in the lead section is relevant to the article's topic, and the paragraph is concise yet informative.

All of the content in the article's major sections is relevant to the topic of economic models and provides insight into both the uses and limitations of using these models. Although the content seems up to date, the references are mostly dated back to over 20 years ago, which raises the question of whether the information about economic models has changed but has not yet been updated on this article. The article is very thorough and is not missing important content, and it also does not start discussing unrelated information. Furthermore, the article does not appear to be about one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and is not about a historically underrepresented population or subject.

The tone of the article is neutral and does not include opinionated sentences. The sentences are informative by describing the topic and how the models are used, and the authors do not try to persuade the reader to feel a certain way. The claims are not heavily biased towards one position, especially since it considers how economic models are both useful and problematic.

After clicking on a few links within the references section, the sources from which the authors got information seem to exist and are still available to review. The article includes multiple in-text citations that indicate where they got their information, and the references seem to be from scholarly sources. The sources are thorough, but many have a publication date from the 20th century, so there is likely more recent and updated information available that can enhance the article. The authors of the references are all different, indicating that the sources are diverse, but many are linked to the United States, specifically New York, so it could be made more diverse by bringing in international authors and content.

The article has a clear organization pattern that follows the table of contents and makes sense with the flow of information. The order in which information is presented is understandable and thoroughly introduces the main ideas. There are not any grammatical or spelling errors and it is overall well-written.

Regarding images and media, this article could have enhanced understanding by including more images of the different kinds of economic models. There is only one image in the entire article, which is places within the lead section, and it only depicts one of the many types of models. The one image they did include has a good descriptive caption and accurately demonstrates an example of an economic model, but it would be beneficial to show multiple different models.

On the Talk page, other creators are also discussing the usefulness of including more examples of the different kinds of models, including financial models, supply and demand models, and more. There are also conversations about renaming the article, fixing the external links, and discussing the relevance of some of the article's sections.

Overall, the article is well written and includes mostly relevant information. The definition and description of the uses of economic models is a strength of the article, but including more images of models would be beneficial and will help support the written content.