User:Gavelagos/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

English studies

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

'''I chose to evaluate English Studies because it is a subject that I am very interested in. At this moment in time, I am thinking I might pursue a Bachelor of Arts in English. However, I am debating whether or not I will commit to this path. There are a lot factors I need to consider before following through with an English major, such as, the skills I will acquire, its future value and purpose, as well as the career opportunities available. I think this article has a lot of potential value but, there is a lot of information missing on the English major itself. The article is at a good start, it just needs to be continually worked on. This article matters because it serves as a sound board for students, like myself, who want to explore their interest in the English discipline but don't know where to start.'''

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
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.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

'''The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article topic. However, there may be room for improvement.'''


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

'''Overall, the article is very underdeveloped. Although there is a somewhat developed lead section---a heavy emphasis on what English Studies actually entails---there seems to be more of a holistic focus rather than a description of all of its parts, thus lacking adequate descriptions of major sections.'''


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

'''The lead does include information that is not present in the article. First, the mention of Anglicist in the lead section isn't fleshed out later in the article. Second, there is mention of related disciplines to English Studies, but there is no section that gives a detailed summary of how these disciplines differ from English Studies and/or overlap with it. Third, the North American Modern Language Association (MLA) is mentioned but it is never talked about later in the article.'''


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

'''There needs to be more addition to the lead. The lead needs to be holistic but at the same time describe its interconnected parts. There are some major sections talked about in the article that are never explicitly stated in the lead section, albeit they are somewhat implied. There is more talk about what English Studies entails, such as courses and subject matters, but there is no cohesiveness in the article's overall structure and no mention of additional interconnected parts.'''

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.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

'''So far, the article's content is very much in line with the topic. However, the article is still underdeveloped at this given time.'''


 * Is the content up-to-date?

'''I can't say for certain whether the content of the article is one hundred percent up-to-date. However, after reading the article, the information presented seems general to the point where it seems up-to-date. This might not be the most extensive evaluation because it isn't. This evaluation is just based on two read throughs I did of the content itself. I have read most of the talk page but haven't looked at all the sources cited within the article because I will do this in the section titled "Sources."'''

'''There is a lot of content that is missing and/or underdeveloped, as well as some content that is questionable in regard to whether it belongs or not. Although the English Major is touched upon, which connects back to English Studies at a post-secondary education level, it is rather lackluster. It also seems like there is a lot of information missing about the English Major in terms of academics and the career opportunities availabe after graduation. In addition, there is barely any information under the "At High School" section and it is debatable whether this section should be included or not in the article. The main problem I see with this article is the scope of it. From what I have read so far, both the article and the talk page, the idea to have the article include English Studies at primary, secondary, and post-secondary education levels from a variety of countries seems to vast and complicated to talk about. If English Studies varies from English speaking country to English speaking country, academic institution to academic institution, and in educational levels, how can we cohesively and accurately write about it?''' '''To my current knowledge, this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Neither does the article address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.'''
 * 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?

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.


 * Is the article neutral?

'''Again, the article is still very underdeveloped so it is hard to definitely say whether the article is 100% neutral or not. However, so far, the article has been quite neutral. I don't see anything specific thing jumping out at me. If I were to nitpick, the article could maybe talk about the different viewpoints of finding careers after undergraduate studies with a specialization in English. In the talk page there is conversation about the career outlook for an English major, however, the different perspectives are never directly mentioned or described in detail within the article itself.'''

'''There is one claim that appears heavily biased toward a particular position. This claim is as follows, "Since 2000, there have been questions about the specific function of English departments at the contemporary U.S. college and university." There is no citation for this claim. I am not exactly sure what particular position this claim is biased toward, but nonetheless, there is some postion. It is helpful that someone pointed out this claim by adding a [by whom?] comment on the claim itself.'''
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?