User:Irvingca/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Social science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It is important that people understand the nature of social sciences. Having this knowledge could lead to a firmer grasp on the implications of modern social scientific research.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article effectively outlines the meaning of the topic and the major themes and concepts associated therewith; however, it also introduces concepts, such as positivism and interpretivism, that are not further explained in the article. The content of the article, for the most part, is relevant to the topic. In the section titled Low Priority of Social Science, there is a short digression about the funding for social science research relevant to climate change. This example is drawn with no exposition and seems to be guided by the influence of opinion with little relevance to the topic. Furthermore, the concepts of positivism and interpretivism should be expounded upon more thoroughly. Most of the article seems fairly unbiased. There is very little description of fringe ideas versus commonplace concepts. The tone of the article shifts noticeable in the final section covering the low priority of social sciences. This section strays from the topic and does not effectively relate the example back to any of the major concepts described. From what I can tell, the sources seem legitimate and have led to information that reflects what is featured in the article. The citations within the article are well paraphrased and do not make use of much direct quotation. This article is well-organized and well-written; however, there were grammatical errors, such as comma splices and only a couple misused semicolons, that did not detract from the value of the information. The Talk page of the article revolves mostly around topics that have possibly been left out, such as psychiatry and other cultural viewpoints on social sciences. The article is rated as a C-Class level 3 article.

Overall, this article was very informative and a great deal of effort has been displayed in getting the tone right. However, there are still some things that could be fixed. Some of the topics mentioned in the lead section (also mentioned above) should be further elaborated upon for the sake of uninformed readers. In certain areas of the article (also mentioned above) there could be more exposition and/or more relevance to the topic at hand. While the article thus far is well developed, there is still more that could be added. A more diverse understanding of the cultural implications of social sciences would make the article feel more complete.