User:Gzora1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Patriot Act

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it has a "B" rating, and because the subject interests me. It was passed about 20 years ago, so it is a relatively recent bill that has existed since my lifetime, so I am able to see how this bill has played out these past years in the aftermath of 9/11. From just looking at the page, my impression is that it seems unbiased and presents just the facts. There is a lot of information, but it is summarized pretty well so that there is no confusion reading it.

Evaluate the article
The lead of this page seems pretty good. It is slightly long, but I attribute that to the fact that there is a lot of information regarding the Patriot Act. The lead gives a small description, a brief history that led up to the bill, and some controversy surrounding it, all things that are discussed in greater detail further down the page, so I think this is a well put together lead.

The content of the article relates to the topic, as it explains in great detail what the bill does. The content is also up to date, as I see additions that refer to how this law came into affect in years like 2015 and 2020. I do not see anything that is unrelated to the article included, and I believe that it addresses underrepresented populations because it includes a controversy section which explains how this law controversially affected a Palestinian-American man.

I think the tone of this article is pretty fair. It is a controversial bill, but I think the article addresses it fairly. However, the article mentions multiple times how this law is controversial, and I could see how a supporter of this law may think this page could be biased, but I personally do not believe it is biased. I do not think that the article tries to persuade a person one way or the other, it is pretty fair and neutral in my opinion.

The sources from this article are fair and accurate. Many sources included are from the actual Patriot Act bill. They are not very current sources, however, because the bill came out 20 years ago. I think that there could be more sources, such as peer reviewed articles that reflect why the law had to be created. I also checked the links of the sources and they all work.

The organization of the article is very clear. It is well written and divided to include the history of the bill, all the titles within the bill, and the controversy surrounding the bill. There are also no spelling errors that I see and overall, the article is easy to read.

I feel this article does not have enough images. The first image is the seal of the US, but it does not have a caption. However, there is a video of George Bush discussion the law and a caption that explains it very clearly, which I am happy they inluded.

The talk page includes some people arguing about the history section, with debate included between someone who thinks the edits should be in a new, summary section, while the other editor thinking the summary and history section should go together. The article has a B rating and is part of many WikiProjects.

The article's status should be considered pretty much completed, as it has a B rating. The strengths of this article are that it has lots of information about the law and it is all presented in a clear and easy to read way. I think an improvement could be including some more images in the titles section so that visually I could understand that section better, because it is a little dense in this section. Overall, It is a well written article and a well-completed article.