User:Iwhitten25/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mandatory sentencing

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.)

I had chosen the article on Mandatory Sentencing as it's extremely relevant to the topic from my annotated bibliography, which explore the War on Drugs. Mandatory sentencing is important to this topic, as it set precedents for how non-violent drug crimes would be ruled upon, and also perpetrated racial targetting within law.

My preliminary impression of this article is that it's written pretty well, and provides extensive background on the topic. It delves into its incorporation into American history and how race does play a factor into mandatory sentencing, which is an essential finding. Although this article discusses how mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws were used to target minorities, it doesn't explore its relation to the War on Drugs explicitly. There also seems to be some bias from the author(s) of this article, which does not alight with the neutrality that Wikipedia emphasizes.

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.)

Evaluating Content

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything is relevant in the article besides the sub-section on Australia's mandatory sentencing. That section didn't quite align with the previous information, which was primarily discussing the laws in the United States and its implications. In the "Other" sub-section, other countries were listed and their laws regarding mandatory sentencing, but the organization and previous information did not align with this information.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The information is up to date and even includes data from 2019, which is reletively recent. Information that lacked was an analysis of how mandatory sentencing fueled the War on Drugs and was an essential part of the government's agenda.
 * Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
 * Yes, there are notable equity gaps. While the article does have a sub-section dedicated to race and mandatory sentencing, it only includes statistics from 1990, 2000, and 2010. If this article provided data during the beginning years of the War on Drugs, it could highlight how mandatory fueled mass incarceration (which could then be connected to recent data from 2010 to current day). The "race" sub-section also isn't clear regarding the location (which I'm assuming is the United States).
 * What else could be improved?
 * I think the organization of this article could be improved, which would include more sub-sections and more relevant informations. Race was a huge factor in mandatory sentencing, and I think that by including more statistics and research, a better understanding of the implications could be apparent.

Evaluating Tone

 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * This article appears neutral, but the sources that are cited are extremely biased and even counteract the "arguments" being made. The author(s) approach this article with a more "philosophical" and "rational" mindset (which a user in the TalkPage argues). There seems to be little representation of the critics point of view regarding mandatory sentencing. On this article, there is even a flag that says, "The neutrality of this section is disputed."
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, the "rationality" of mandatory sentencing seems to be overrepresented, while the "critics" point of view is underrepresented.

Evaluating Sources

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links do work to the few citations that I clicked on (most were PDFs to download). However, some of the sources cited actually counteract the information that the author(s) provide. For example, when the author(s) discuss racial disparities that were consequences of the mandatory sentencing, they provide a link to the Fair Sentencing Act, which doesn't acknowledge the racial targeting and mass incarceration of minorities.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * No, a lot of information actually lacks citations. I'm assuming that the author(s) did use the sources cited in the footnotes, but did not include them in the actual article/sub-sections. However, many of the sources are not relevant to what's actually being shared and are biased (either too critical against mandatory sentencing or extremely in favor of).
 * Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?
 * Yes, the sources are all derived from a diverse array of authors/publications, which provides great variety (although they're still biased and oftentimes irrelevant).

Checking the Talk Page

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Many users in the talk page do not like the organization of this article, as it's labeled "chaotic" and "confusing". Many feel that this article has misrepresented and irrelevant information, and should be rewritten. Many are also not in favor of the sources used and the lack of citations when information is provided.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as a "Start-Class" by Wikipedia's content-assessment scale. This article is in the scope of the WikiProject Law, but is rated as low-importance to the project.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This Wikipedia is more neutral compared to the way we've discussed mandatory sentencing in my law classes. In my law classes, we're extremely critical of these laws, a viewpoint that this article lacks. However, the sources we used in my law classes when reading about/discussing these laws were relevant, something this article lacks. It doesn't provide enough information regarding race and mandatory sentencing/mass incarceration or the impact it had on minority communities.