User:Fa20scj/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.


 * Bachelor of Arts
 * I'm pursuing a BA myself, and I have wondered what's the difference between BA and AB especially.

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 introductory sentence was concise and clear. It also gives a brief overview of the countries it will later discuss. There is no information outside the article. The lead is very short, making it concise but somewhat less comprehensive.

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 content is relevant and up-to-date, but missing some elements. First, the content discusses how BA has evolved and recognized in different countries, but doesn't explain what is being taught, and what disciplines are associated with this degree. Also, the article addresses BA in different countries, but it only discusses Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, and Ireland. I can't find portions for the US and Asian countries. This is not only incomplete but also failing to deal with equity gaps, since most of the countries described are Western developed nations. In some, I would have started by explaining what academic qualifications are expected to earn a BA in general, and added sections addressing BA's in more countries.

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 and unbiased. It doesn't include value judgments or attempts to persuade the reader. But as described above, the article is not well-proportioned. Some of the sections go really deep into certain country's history of academia, but the article omits many parts. But that is disproportion of contents rather than viewpoints.

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
The article contains enough links, and they help the readers navigate through different topics even deeper. However, the reference section is too weak. It only has two references: one for the US and the other for Australia. If the author wrote based on abundant sources (links), they should have included more of them in the references section. These sources are again not diverse, because the article as a whole fails to address all parts of the world.

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
Despite the weak content and sources, the article is well-written. It is concise, and doesn't have grammatical or spelling errors. The organization is somewhat, again, disproportionate, because there are entirely different stories under different sections, which are not evenly distributed.

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
The article doesn't include any image.

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
I don't see any talk under this article.

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 starts off by providing a well-written introduction, but it seriously lacks contents. It fails to provide academic qualities associated with the degree and only addresses a few countries. Most of them are developed Western nations, making the article unsuccessful in terms of diversity. The reference section is also weak. In order to improve this article, I would add more context in the beginning, and try to collect information and add it under more sections, with abundant references.

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: