User:GuugWiki/Evaluate an Article

Luke Bartelt - 1/18/2023

Which article are you evaluating?
Marxism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I feel like I have a solid base of knowledge about this topic and it is very interesting to me.

Evaluate an article

 * Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * 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 sectio
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Somewhat, although it is a run on sentence with some bias.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * While there are way too many sections to outline in the lead, it does somewhat preview what will be discussed
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * As far as I can tell it doesn't
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * For the most part it is concise, but it definitely feels somewhat clunky.
 * 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?
 * Yes, and there is a huge range of areas to cover.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It certainly seems so, much of the primary source material is of course very old. While there are certainly new interpretations which remain absent (new materialism) the content seems to cover the topic rather well
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In the lead, there is a classification of Marxism as a left to far-left method of analysis, which imposes some bias.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * In some sense I suppose you could say that it does due to the abundance of popular misinformation, but for the most part I don't think that it does.
 * 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?
 * Much of the content and descriptions of marxist thought directly engage with the source material, although there is that line in the lead.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not that I saw, much of the content seems to be at least mostly accurate.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I don't think so, although the criticisms section is a bit smaller than I expected.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * I would say so. The article is generally clear when discussing interpretations or branches of marxism.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.
 * 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.
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The only part where this is very clearly an issue is in the lead, where there are three sources describing marxism as a left wing ideology, but which are only applicable to particular societies and fails to make a sufficient distinction. Other than that the article is rather well sourced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * To some extent: there is a lot of use of the primary writings of marx and engels, and there is a fair amount of secondary literature, although both are far too extensive to thoroughly cover in one article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * As current as they can be, although there always new work which could probably be added.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * To some extent, although much of it is in the later sections about how marxism has influenced other fields
 * 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.)
 * The only section where I find this relevant is in the lead, which has some questionable sources to back up its poorly framed claim.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes
 * Organization and writing quality
 * Some of the writing is at times a bit clunky, but for the most part is clear and understandable.
 * The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
 * yes
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes
 * Images and Media
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * 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.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Lots of discussion about whether the phrasing in the lead is appropriate, and even though the consensus is that it needs a rewrite with clarification, the 'bad' version is still there.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as a c article, and as a very important article and needs updating.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This is not really a topic we have particularly discussed.
 * Overall impressions
 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It covers a very broad range of topics
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The lead needs updating, and I think it could use a section on marx's ontology
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say it is rather thoroughly developed, although there are a few sections that could be a little more fleshed out.