User:Fishybookworm418/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Criminology - Wikipedia

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this particular article to evaluate due to my keen interest in the field of Forensic Science and Criminology as a whole.

Evaluate the article.
= Evaluate an Article Questions: =

Lead:
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.

Questions about Lead:
1.     Does the lead include an introduction sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic? Yes, it does include a concise description of the topic this particular article is attempting to present, along with other smaller facts.

2.    Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major sections? Yes.

3.    Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn’t) It does not.

4.    Is the lead concise, or is it overly detailed? While it does provide more detail regarding the origin of criminology as a whole, it keeps the topic generally concise and easy to understand for those looking for a brief overview of the topic.

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.

Questions about Content:
1.     Is the article’s content relevant to the topic? Yes.

2.    Is the content up to date? Seeing as this particular article had been updated on April 27, 2023, then I would argue that this content is, in fact, up to date.

3.    Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? While I do believe that it could work with more context regarding the types of fields in criminology for those interested in it, I feel that the content already presented in this article provides enough for the purpose of educating the masses.

4.    Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia‘s equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, as it talks about a multitude of minority groups and their relation to the field of criminology, such as the LGBTQ+ community and people from other countries.

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.

Questions about Tone and Balance:
1.     Is the article neutral? For the most part, yes, though the “Classical” portion of this article has been flagged by the Wiki as having the neutrality of said section to still currently be disputed.

2.    Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Despite the flag from the Wiki, I don’t find anything that would suggest a particular point of view in this article.

3.    Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? I believe that all of the viewpoints that are presented are equally represented in the article.

4.    Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes, I believe that they are, though this article focuses more so on theories and particular groups that focus primarily on a particular subsection of criminology rather than the race and ethnicity of any particular criminals that have been jailed.

5.    Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not.

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.

Questions about Sources and References:
1.     Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, and there are roughly 88 references and 16 different sources so that the reader can read and understand those particular sections better.

2.    Are the sources thorough – i.e., do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes to both of these questions

3.    Are the sources current? While some of these sources are less current than others, a majority of them debatably still fall under the general current timeline of the 1990’s to as late as the year of 2020.

4.    Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes, there are plenty of authors that all support the ideas of this particular topic.

5.    Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.

6.    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.) While there are a few other sources that could help polish some of the information presented in this article, I believe that the ones currently provided work perfectly for the purpose that they’ve been used for.

7.    Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, most of them work.

Organization and Writing Quality
The writing should be clear and professional; the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Questions for Organization and Writing Quality
1.     Is the article well written – i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy-to-read? Yes.

2.    Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, but only a few.

3.    Is the article well-organized – i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I believe that it’s organized well enough for a reader to understand which section they are currently reading.

Images and Media:
1.     Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.

2.    Are images well captioned? Yes, the few that are present are captioned well.

3.    Do all images adhere to Wikipedia ‘s copyright regulations? Yes, they do.

4.    Are the images laid out in a visually-appealing way? Yes.

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.

Questions for Talk Page Discussion:
1.     What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I feel like conversations regarding how the article can become more neutral are going on behind the scenes.

2.    How is the article rated? This article is generally rated as a B-Class, though “WikiProject Crime” rates it as a C-Class article.

3.    Is it a part of any wiki projects? Yes, there are three different WikiProjects that have been assigned this article.

Questions for Overall Impressions:
1.     What is the article ‘s overall status? To take the average of what’s been said about the article, this particular one seems to be rated as a High-Importance article with a B-Class rating.

2.    What are the article’s strengths? I feel that this article does very well in providing precise information about the subjects surrounding the main topic.

3.    How can the article be improved? I believe this article could be improved by fixing the few spelling errors and possibly providing simpler definitions so that a reader can easily understand the topic without having to look anything up.

4.    How would you assess the articles completeness – i.e. is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I believe that this article is well-developed, though there are still smaller issues that can be improved.

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.