User:Emiliaberk/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating? Politics in education
(Provide a link to the article here.)

== Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? As I was skimming through articles, this one caught my eye, 1) because it pertains to this course, being a political science course, and 2) because I have always been interested in the curriculums within school and everything that (very specifically/intentionally) is and isn't taught and the amount of important information/history that is either misconstrued or entirely left out of curriculums. I clicked on this assuming it would be about politics within education/curriculum, which it is politics within education but it is very basic with very little information. ==

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

== This article stays relevant to the topic considering it mostly basic definitions. The information in this article is not inaccurate, however is lacking information. A simple definition is given for what politics in school is, and mentions the difference between micro-economics and macro-economics, but this article does not go more in depth about other ways politics appears in curriculums and throughout education. This article is also lacking any information on the history of politics within education. I feel that there is a lot of information and history on the topic of politics in schools that is important and not only should be provided/known, but also taught. While this article is lacking information, it is a good start as it is unbiased and the information that is available is well presented. There are only two sources notes so there is not a large range of diversity, but all listed sources and listed further readings have been confirmed as reliable. I was not able to view these articles in full, however based on what I was able to view, they related to politics in education" and appeared as unbiased and factually accurate. In the talk section, there were not many responses, although it was still agreed upon that the article is unbiased and accurate, the definitions are vague and lacking information; some mention that the article is hard for them to fully wrap their head around, likely attributable to the lack of information and clarity. This article is not rated and has been used in three wiki projects in 2019. ==

(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.)