User:Heyitsjami/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sociology of law

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am interested in the intersections of sociology and law, so I felt that it would be smart to evaluate an article based in subject matter that I am interested in.

Evaluate the article
The lead section contains a good introductory sentence as well as a brief introduction to all of the subjects that are to be discussed in the article. All of the information present in the article is mentioned in the lead section. In my opinion, the lead section is concise and to the point.

The article's content is relevant to the topic and seems to be up to date - I can't find an instance where there is content that is either missing or that does not belong. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, and it does not address topics that are related to any historically underrepresented populations.

The article is neutral and does not seem to attempt to persuade the reader to follow a specific viewpoint. I also don't think any viewpoints are over-represented or underrepresented. I don't see any particular viewpoints as being referred to minority or fringe - however, it seems that in cases of specific viewpoints that are less well-known or popular, less is said on the subject.

The facts in the article are well supported by citations all throughout. They also seem to be current and there is certainly a wide variety of authors who are cited. I am unsure if any of the authors include historically marginalized individuals in that it isn't very easy to tell. Of the few links I clicked, all of them worked and led to a valid source. I don't think better sources are available in that none of the sources seem to be things such as news articles or other media coverage - they all seem to be peer-reviewed research articles.

The article is well-written, concise, and very clear. It is also well-organized in its sectioning. However, I did notice that, in some places, there was an extra comma, so the grammar is not completely perfect. Besides that, however, the grammar seemed to be sound.

This article contains very few images. The ones that are present, however, have great captions because they are essentially hyperlinks that detail who the people are in each picture. The images definitely adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. In my opinion, the images aren't laid out in a visually appealing way because they are all pushed to the right side of the article and, as mentioned before, there are very few of them.

There aren't many conversations currently going on on the Talk page for this article - since 2006, the updates have been very few and far between. The article is rated B-class and is a part of WikiProject Sociology. To be honest, the way Wikipedia discusses this topic is different because there really isn't much discussion at all - people have posted a few comments, but there don't seem to have been any responses.

Overall, I think the article is good, but it definitely could use some improvements. A more thorough grammar check could greatly benefit the article, and I believe more consistent and updated discussion and discourse could help the editing process more. However, the article is well-researched and is very succinct, clear, and descriptive. I would say the article is on its way to be being well-developed, but it isn't quite there yet; with the suggestions I've made above, I believe the article could be much more developed.