User:Greatwikishark/Evaluate an Article

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

Economic history

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.)

I am studying economics as a student and saw economic history as the title and was intrigued. So I clicked on it and chose it. I think it matters because economics is something used in our daily lives and the origin of this may be crucial to how society functions today. Initially, this article looked incredibly dense and complicated to read. There is a lot of text and information to cover. It seemed intimidating. However, I still gave it a try.

= 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.)


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, the information discussed all related to Economic History with specific discourse on certain subjects.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The image of world GDP data is from 1400-2003 which I believe could be updated to 2023 as 2024 has just begun.
 * There is a mix of old sources and recent sources. The age range of sources could be from 1940s to 2021.
 * Some information could possibly updated.
 * Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
 * There are "sub-disciplines" mentioned regarding to economic history. However, there seems to be more coverage on the idea of "cliometrics" than the other disciplines mentioned.
 * This article does not touch on representing historically marginalized populations besides the small mention of feudalism and Marxism when discussing Marxian Economics.
 * What else could be improved?
 * The explanations are still quite dense and there is a lot of information compiled together which could be difficult to digest.
 * It would be better to break it down into smaller paragraphs and parts.

Notes:
- plenty of sources

- helpful links of the people mentioned in the text

- some discourse and arguments mentioned from specific people referenced.

-some sub-topics mentioned more than others.

= Evaluating tone: =


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Fairly neutral. There are minor descriptions of claims of scholars that are referenced just to provide insight on what
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not necessarily viewpoints but there are some categories that have less information provided that others. Such as Cliometrics there is a lot of coverage while there is a short explanation on Marxian Economics.

= Talk Page: =


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are conversations clarifying definitions and share knowledge amongst the chat that are backed up by sources. It is like a feed of small argumentative essays talking to each other.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Level 5 vital article
 * yes it is connected to 5 WikiProjects: Business, Economics, History, Middle Ages, and European History
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The way Wikipedia discusses this topic is very niche and organized into many categories. If in class, we may talk about the background and definitions with what we may know.

= Evaluating sources: =


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, mainly academic and from textbooks.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Sources are from scholars or textbooks that are quite known.
 * Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?
 * yes there are a variety of sources from different authors of different economic studies