User:Isabellar066/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Bachelor of Arts

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Why I chose the Bachelor of Arts Article: I chose this article because I was interested in the subject as I am currently pursuing a Bachelor of Arts and I found it interesting that this article focuses on how different nations view the level and length of their respective Bachelor of Arts degrees as well as how these different nations overlap or differ from my own knowledge of Canadian bachelor of arts standards.

Why it Matters: This article matters because the Bachelor of Arts degree happens to share the title of being one of the most popular degree in the world (tied with Bachelor of Sciences) so there are presumably many individuals (primarily students and academics) that would value an understanding of what a bachelor of arts is, how it works, and how each nations conducts their respective programs.

My Preliminary Impression: at a first read through, the article is rather underwhelming. Before I explain the underwhelming elements, I want to mention that I enjoy how the article breaks up the nations into groups of those that practice the bachelor of arts as a three year degree and those that practice it as a four year degree as well as the further explanation of how different parts of the same nations may view the length of the degree as well. I did enjoy that the article mentioned the different levels of a bachelor of arts and how certain nations conduct those levels. I enjoyed the little spotlight of how certain nations such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Nepal, and South Africa despite being very different nations have a similar degree structure. Finally, I enjoyed the brief history lesson and break down that the article provide for the European nations; Netherlands and Germany and the UK/Ireland. What made the article underwhelming at first glance was the fact that it did not really go into detail of what the bachelor of arts entails. It did not include the different disciplines that could be classified as a bachelor of arts and whether some of those disciplines might have also fallen into other academic paths. Even though the article mentioned many nations, the extended explanations had little to no information on nations in Africa or Asia. Some of the extended explanations also lacked the same level of depth that the others had received such as Netherlands and the UK/Ireland including more historical context than the Netherlands section. These were my preliminary impressions of the article.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section:

-Introductory Sentence: Yes, the article does include a clear and concise introductory sentence of the topic as well as what the area of the topic the article will be more focused on (in this case the length of the program according to different nations).

-Brief Description of the article's major sections: Other than contents list, the brief description does not mention the major sections. The brief description mentions many different nations but does not specifically indicate that the next sections will be focused on the nations it does actually cover.

-Information in the lead that is not present in the article: the lead section does not present any additional information that is not present in the rest of the article.

-Concise or Over-detailed: the lead section is concise. One could make the argument that the lead may even be too concise as the lead focuses on the length of the degree in different countries but fails to mention any historical aspects that are mentioned in further sections.

Content:

-Content Relevant to the Topic: For the most part, the content of the article is relevant to the topic. I believe that there may be underwhelming aspects of the content but nevertheless, the current information does not veer away from the topic.

-Up to Date: Yes, the content is up to date as two of the references used were from the past year.

-Content Missing/Does Not Belong: I believe that there is a little content missing. I believe a more in-depth explanation of what a bachelor of arts is and what that degree would entail at the undergraduate level would have been beneficial to the article as a whole as well as give readers a more solidified understanding of the length of the program.

-Wikipedia Equity Gaps: Unfortunately, the article does not tackle any of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Since the realm of academia is very influential to that of economics and poverty, it would have been beneficial if the article included the different costs of the degree, especially any possible differences that the length of the degree would mean financially.

Tone and Balance:

-Neutral Tone: Yes, the article does carry a neutral tone as it does primarily give a tone that is factual.

-Claims that may appear heavily Biased: In the first section: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Nepal, and South Africa: the section does focus more on how the bachelor of arts degree is conducted in Canada while giving a very general overview for the other nations.

-Overrepresented/Underrepresented: the article does have an overrepresentation of European/Western nations and how they conduct their respective bachelor of arts programs. Nations in Africa and Asia, while mentioned, are underrepresented.

-Minority/Fringe Viewpoints: Due to the article's factual tone, there does not seem to be much minority nor fringe viewpoints that particularly stood out.

-Swaying of Opinion: Despite the uneven representation, the article does not come off as trying to sway readers into one particular viewpoint over another.

Sources and References:

-Reliable Secondary Sources of Information: Most of the in-text references are backed up by other Wikipedia articles. In terms of the references, the article is primarily based on University websites ( America, Australia, Bangladesh, Israel).

-Thorough Sources: the sources available are thorough in terms of a surface level understanding as it does include information such as the length of the bachelor of arts which is the main focus of the article. The sources do manage to give an explanation on what the degree program is like but more institutionally than nationally.

-Current Sources: Two out of the 5 sources used are current as in being within the last five years. One is within the last ten years and two are unavailable.

-Diverse Sources: While the sources do include institutions from different nations, the article lacks individual authors, thus is also lacking marginalized authors as well.

-Better Sources Available: Yes, there are better sources available that are more academically driven. Some examples would include: Gannaway, Deanne. “The Bachelor of Arts: Slipping into the Twilight or Facing a New Dawn?” Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 34, no. 2, Routledge, 2015, pp. 298–310, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.956689. This source is credited from an academic portal that is peer-reviewed and is written by a singular author. It is also current as it is within the last five years.

-Do the Links Work: Unfortunately, two of the sources (the ones that do not show a date) are inaccessible or do not exist on the website anymore.

Organization and Writing Quality:

-Is the Article Well Written: the article is concise and it is clear. It does not deviate too much from the topic nor go on long, run-on sentences. The sections and sentences are also relatively short and straight to the point in terms of discussing the topic straight to the point.

-Grammar/Spelling Errors: the article does not concise of any spelling or grammatical errors (from my understanding)

-Well-Organized: The organization of the article is a bit illogical. The lead sections include mentions of many different kinds of nations. However, the following sections are only focused on some nations but there is little reason as to why those nations got a focused sections as opposed to others nor if there is anything particularly more significant.

Images and Media:

- Images in the Article: there is one image included in this article.

-Well-Captioned: the image is well captioned as it explains exactly what is being shown.

-Wikipedia's Copyright: the one image does adhere to the copyright standards of Wikipedia.

-Lay Out: The image is not laid out in an aesthetic way as the picture is too far off to the side and is very small that the words of the pictures cannot be made out at first glance.

Talk Page Discussion:

-Kinds of Conversations: Some of the conversations that are occurring/have occurred are: the inaccessibility of many of the references, the incomplete definition of what liberal arts/bachelor of arts actually entails as many people believe that natural sciences should be included. One of the most repeated conversation topics happen to be the incorrect information surrounding how different regions in Canada conduct their bachelor of arts programs.

-Rate/Wiki Projects: The article is currently rated as "Start-Class." Some of the projects that the article is apart of are: WikiProject Literature, WikiProject Arts, WikiProject Higher Education, WikiProject Education (all rated as start-class)

-Wikipedia vs Class: The discussions from Wikipedia and class discussions are very similar. I believe that the only difference would be that class discussions provide more opinions in the sense of more personal views than facts.

Overall Impressions:

-Overall Status: I think the article started off in the right direction. Obviously, revaluation on definitions and nationally based information can be strengthen as well as organized better. Most importantly, I believe that it is imperative that better sources that are more academically driven be used and prioritized.

-Strengths: One of its biggest strengths is the article's tone. The article does a good job in being able to keep its topic as neutral as well as dense in facts.

-Improvements: Some ways that the article can be improved is by more attention to the sources, specially more that are academically driven as it would also add in the development of the topic. In doing so, it would also be possible to include work from a marginalized author which would be aligned with Wikipedia's equity gap, allowing an enrichment of the topic as it allows more perspectives to be shared. Another improvement could be the focus on nations from Africa and/or Asia as their educational structure of the degree does not get enough coverage as the European nations do.

-The Completeness of the Article: As mentioned before, the article is severely under developed. The article would greatly benefit from providing more explanation on what the bachelor of arts is, what it entails and perhaps a brief history. It is under developed in its inclusion of different regions and it would benefit the article more if it were to equally provide perspectives of nations and their degree structure. It is under developed in its sources as a more academic based sources could provide the organization that the article is currently lacking.