User:Erinartna/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Federal aid during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Our student Wikipedia project will focus on the socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on minority populations in Canada. This article on federal aid should provide insight into the economic aspect of our research question.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead contains an introductory sentence that is concise and clear. However, it does not give an overview of the main headings of the articles, instead giving a historical overview of when the aid measures began and how they were approved. This information on approval by Julie Payette is also not included nor elaborated upon in the body of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is highly specific and relevant to the topic, giving an overview of the various aid programs that were implemented or adjusted in response to the pandemic in Canada. The content is also up-to-date, with recent sources (e.g. September 2020). There does not appear to be content missing or content that does not belong, and it does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral, succeeding in providing a summary of measures and their specifications without imbuing authorial tone as to their relevance or benefit. As such, I did not observe any claims that appeared biased towards a particular position, or attempts at persuasion. Given the broad range of factual information that was covered, there were also no viewpoints overly or underly represented.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All facts are backed up by appropriate sources, reflecting a wide range of available literature (news articles, government releases, etc.) on the topic. There could be more academic literature cited, there is a heavy emphasis on news articles. They do appear current, with recent sources such as September 2020 included. It is challenging to ascertain the identity of the authors, given that many sources come from government releases rather than distinct authors with available profiles to examine. The links are functional.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written, concise, and clear. The organization makes sense, with distinct headings for different types of federal aid, and also does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images in this article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
It does not appear that there are any conversations going on the Talk page as of right now.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is well-developed in its content and is strong at providing a large amount of factual information without any authorial bias. However, including pictures and perhaps perspectives of citizens on the issue (e.g. through interviews), as well as including a wider range of sources (including academic ones) would be areas of improvement to counter its current weaknesses. It does however seem factually complete and as such I would give it a strong overall status.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: