User:Icd4vf/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: (link)
 * Panopticon
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The Panopticon is the foundational aspect of Panopticism, and subsequently is extremely relevant in analyzing a hyper-policed and monitored world.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, but it could be better
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * To be honest, it is the perfect length, although some might call it too concise about specific things (which I will mention more later) or too detailed about technical aspects of the Panopticon

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, everything in the article directly relates to the topic
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * To my knowledge, yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content I deem to be missing is broader and more specific connections/examples to modern-day surveillance, but there is certainly nothing extraneous in the article

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, although it's a tough question to answer, because inherently, it is about the "perfect" prison or surveillance system, so the article seems unbiased, but is generally highlighting the ways that Bentham's design was ingenious
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not specifically, however, the article does seem to endorse Bentham's overall position about the effectiveness of his design
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Related to the question above, the article makes sure to share people that disagreed with him, however, they were almost exclusively around 50 years of Bentham's life, so not modern at all
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I would say no, given that it's focused on illuminating the entire story, but then again, it's definitely up to interpretation if it's persuasive

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of the facts are either backed up with primary documents, secondary sources analyzing primary ones (with the primary source attached), or are more or less modern, with references to both old and new scholarship
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough, but to be frank, aren't incredibly relevant to the topic. To be clear, they are related, but it's clear that they were distilled considerably to fill up the Wikipedia article
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, but that is intentional as I mentioned above. Some of the sources are original (or primary), and are from the 18th/19th century, and then others are current, and include books and articles spanning the entire most-recent decade
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, and the book citations seem to be correct as well

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I do think that the article is extremely well-written, in that it is informative, but it isn't quite as concise as I would've liked. Moreover, given how many modern sources they use, I was hoping to see more inclusion and or analysis of modern issues, even though that is in more abstract territory, and the article focuses on being literal and historical.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * To my knowledge, no; The article was grammatically correct, with proper spelling, and an expansive vocabulary.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Contrary to my critique mentioned two statements above, the layout of the article is succinct and logical, with sections chock-full of information. However, I stand by taking an issue with what the actual sections were, because I think making the connection between the history/underpinnings of the Panopticon and modernity is critically important.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, brilliantly so
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * More or less, yes. Some could've used more descriptive captions, but generally speaking, they were good
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * To my knowledge, yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, as they switch sides of the page and coincide properly with the blocks of text

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * I am not deeply aware of conversations regarding representing the Panopticon, but I do know that there is a lot of emphasis on the underpinnings of it, meaning how to talk about surveillance, prisons, their design, and more.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article doesn't seem to be rated itself, nor does it appear to be directly part of any WikiProjects, but it is related to WikiProjects about mass surveillance, Philosophy, policing, incarceration, and a few others.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It was far drier and less-engaging, but it is an encyclopedia article, so it technically isn't supposed to be anything other than accurate and informative.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I couldn't find this, but given how often it is updated, and how robust it is, I assume it has a good grade
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are that it is extremely informative, has stellar references and external readings, has pictures and diagrams to explain and subsequently allow the reader to extrapolate the points the article makes elsewhere, and overall, is useful in getting a broader understanding of prisons, surveillance, power dynamics, and more
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Although it sort of contradicts a point I made earlier, the article goes too-in-depth about certain things, which I think pigeon-holes the reader into thinking that they have the full story. So, to make it better, I would remove some of the unnecessary jargon and history, to make it more succinct and accessible, especially given the cultural ramifications of understanding all of this stuff.
 * 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's complete, but that it needs some structural reconfiguration and redacting some of the info to make it easier to read

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: