User:Fomanka/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Causal analysis.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

This article was chosen because in for very effect there is a cause and it is important to understand the design that properly explain cause-and- effect relationships.

This article matters because once the cause of an outcome has been identified, it will eliminate the speculations about other factors that significantly influence an outcome.

This article does a good job in explaining causal analysis because it uses varies scientific and philosophical theories to expound on the concept of causal analysis.

Evaluate the article
(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.)

Lead section

The first paragraph of the lead section of this article is succinct in concisely defining the what causal analysis is all about. The lead section of the article also contains the four elements of causal analysis and the mechanisms under which they exist. It is easy for any reader to get an overview of what the theme of the article is about. The lead section also contains information that is found throughout the body of the article.

Content

The article's content is somewhat relevant to the topic. The writers who contributed to this article did a good job in explaining what causal analysis is. Other aspects of causal analysis that could be included to this article are the various types of correlations such as strong positive, weak positive, strong negative, and linear relationships, etc.

The article is up to date. However, it does not address Wikipedia's equity gaps. The article does not also address underrepresented peoples or topics.

Tone and Balance

The writers of this article were neutral in their presentation. The article is not leaning towards theory against another. The writers were effective in striking a fair balance between the philosophical and scientific perspectives of cause-and-effect relationships.

Sources and References

The article contains several good peered reviewed sources and some book references.

Some many of sources in this article are not recent sources. The oldest source is 47 years old while the newest source in the article is 4 years old.

Not all reference links in the article are working.

Organization and writing quality

The article was well written - it is concise and broken that into comprehensive sections. The writers also provided good examples in their write-ups.

The reader didn't find any grammatical error in the article.

Images and Media

No images are found in the article.

Talk page discussion

In the Talk page, the reader could find suggestions that were made in area of placing certain information in their appropriate sections.

The reader also discovered, that a book was not properly cited. A book that was referenced has two authors but just one author was listed as part of reference for the book.

Comments about copy and paste were also made by Wikipedians.

Overall impressions

This article has been rated as C-class

The article could have some good information on causal analysis but more could be done to enrich the content on this subject.

The article could be improved by adding recently published knowledge on the subject of causal analysis. Recent references are highly recommended.

When it comes to the article's completeness, the reader finds it be underdeveloped.