User:Hearnc6/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Employment equity (Canada)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate as 10% of working Canadians are affected by Employment equity laws and it is important for them to understand their rights. Having a strong article is important for them to obtain valuable information.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead contains a strong and concise introductory sentence that alludes the major topics of the articles briefly. The Lead of the article does not include or reference the history section of the article. The Lead isn't overly detailed and does a good job of introducing what to expect in the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * All of the content within the article remains on the topic of Employment equity. The article does a great job at not introducing irrelevant material although at first introducing the controversy's seemed out of place but makes sense after continuing to read the article. The content is up-to-date and still has active members making edits to the article. Although, some of the sources the articles uses if from the 1980s when addressing current controversies. The article directly addresses the topic related to minority groups being underprivileged in federal government workplace positions.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is extremely neutral as it represents equal sentences displaying both sides of controversies related to the topic. Furthermore, it has equal amount of sources for both sides of viewpoints.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * All factually based sentences are backed up but a secondary source. The article does have some outdated sources especially since the are based on current controversies related to the topic. However, the articles have gender and racial diversity. All source links still work.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is concise, clear and does a great job at elaborating on harder to grasp topics related to employment equity. The articles has a clear path in the sections as it begins with history, explains in-depth the employment equity, and then addresses current opinions. I could not find any grammatical or spelling errors in the article.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * There are no images within the articles which results in the page looking dry. Adding images of protests or current debates related to employment equity would be very affected in displaying viewpoints.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * There is only two conversations in the talk tab. One debates the use of peoples vs persons when referring to people with disabilities. The other conversation is just notifying people that a users of changes to URL links to make them more accurate. The article is part of business, Canada, feminism and sociology WikiProjects and is rated C for everything but business where it is only rated as a start. The importance is mid across the board except for sociology where it is of low importance. The article goes into greater depth in employment equity and the acts related to the push for employment equity.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is ongoing, and rated a C due to it lacking some content or having unreliable sources. The article does a great job on explaining controversies related to the topic and having many sources backing his factual statements. The article could use images to help explain some of the topics. Furthermore, it could overall have more content added to each section as it is too concise. I would say it is underdeveloped, it needs more recent sources and greater detail regulatory oversight section.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: