User:Fire lily445/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: Structural Functionalism
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I found it on a list of pages related to archaeology/anthropology, and it sounded like an interesting and potentially mathematical sociological concept.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introduction could be clearer. It uses some broad terminology and I wasn't left with a strong concept of what it actually is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not; it only lists them in the table of contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Doubtful, but it is a rather lengthy article and I did not check all the way thru to confirm.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise, although it could be more concise and more clear.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content describes the history of the developement of the theory -- including the prominent names in its formation. Also featured is information on its relevance today as a model.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, this appears to be a moderately monitored and edited article, with the most recent update being a few days ago
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is nothing that I found that does not belong. I am certain there is always more information that can be found on a subject, however.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does -- the theory was largely applied to indigenous populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is very neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are not; all claims are made in a historical perspective.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all relevant viewpoints seem to be represented. Perhaps those of indigenous peoples could be included.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It does not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are numerous sources cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they appear to be thorough and diverse, and ranging from many years.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most current is from 2005
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * That seems doubtful. On first glance these appear to be mostly Western-educated sources
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * There are only two links; they both work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No, it is a slightly below-average writing in my opinion. It is too lengthy and crucial information is diluted.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I detected.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, it chooses a chronological order that distracts from the differences of theory.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only one, and it is not very useful at all. Definitely could use more. After reading the article, I believe that it is actually misleading and/or irrelevant to the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the source was documented.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, it just exists near the title and actually misleads the reader as to the content.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There appear to be a healthy number of topics, however the most recent activity seems to be from 2010
 * Some debate on what should be included, and critique of the articles readability
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of numerous WikiProjects, including Sociology and Conservatism. It is C-Class uniformly, ranging from Mid- to Top-Importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not talked about this topic. However, the chronological approach reminded me of our lecture on the history of Anthropological theory.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Class-c, not-featured
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Amount of content
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Clearer, more concise writing. Better structure. Relevant pictures. More examples.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is moderately well developed. The bulk of the information is there, it just needs to be curated better.

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 — ~
 * Can someone help me understand how the title image of a social network map is relevant to the topic? To me it actually seems misleading to the meaning of the theory itself. Thanks --~


 * Link to feedback:
 * Talk:Structural functionalism