User:Izzy.vin/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: Right to Information Act, 2005
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because it will be my area article and I think it needs some work done on it.

Lead evaluation

 * The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, although I think it could be expanded upon in layman's terms to include at the beginning that this is about government transparency.
 * The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * It mentions that the Whistle Blowers Protection act of 2011 counteracts the Right to Information Act, but does not mention it any further in the article.
 * The Lead is concise, but I do think there are a bit random sentences that could break up into different sections later in the article that don't necessarily need to be put in the Lead. For example, this is the last sentence, "RTI has proven to be very useful, but is counteracted by the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011." I felt like this sentence was not needed considering they don't expand on this any further in the article, or they could have made a whole section about it because that sentence does not tell me at all how this other act has counteracted the RTI, and leaves me confused.

Content evaluation

 * The article's content is relevant to the topic but content could be expanded upon.
 * The content is up-to-date.
 * More content under 'Controversies' should be added but there should also be a section on the benefits or advantages if you're going to have a section expressing the limitations. Plus, I feel like this article should have a section on how this act came about because if I was an average Wikipedia scroller, I wouldn't understand why it is India did not adopt an act like this until 2005 or why it was needed in India.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The article is pretty neutral.
 * I don't believe there are any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position
 * The viewpoint of the RTI Act being nothing but good, is a bit overrepresented as they have a section on controversies but mostly highlight the violence that has taken place on RTI activists seeking information, which is fine, but they do not highlight the real controversies or limitations under the RTI that should be noted. The other information that they do have under the 'controversies' section, isn't very complete. They mention that people have had obstacles with the RTI Act in actually seeking information, but do not expand upon it nearly enough.
 * I don't think that the article attempts to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and references evaluation

 * All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * The sources are mostly online articles, so they are as thorough as they can be but I do not think they represent the grand scope of literature on the topic
 * The sources are current., ranges from 2013 to 2019.
 * The links work.

Organization evaluation

 * The article is well-written.
 * The article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The article is well-organized, the sub categories make sense under their categories.

Images and media evaluation

 * The article does not really include images that enhance the understanding of the topic, there is only one picture and it is a receipt for payment of fee for collecting information under the RTI Act.
 * The image is well-captioned.
 * The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * The image is not laid out in a visually appealing way and I don't know why it is in the section that it is in, it should have been placed in the subcategory about fees.

Talk page evaluation

 * Some want information about RTI activism and the movement on there and some do not.
 * It is of mid-importance, is of interest to multiple WikiProjects, and is the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.
 * Wikipedia does not really discuss this topic.

Overall evaluation

 * The article's overall status is that it is pretty concise and neutral but needs working on to include the full scope of the Act and the Sections that are outlined.
 * The article's strengths are that throughout the other sections apart from 'Controversies', it remains neutral.
 * The article can be improved by adding more to the controversies section that talks about the actual state limitations of the act not just about the activism, adding a new section that talks about what gave rise to the RTI Act, and a better explanation of how exactly the Whistle Blowers Protection Act counteracts the RTI since they mention it in the Lead but do not explain at all.
 * The article is underdeveloped.