User:JS194504/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: Deterrence (penology)
 * It is related to my field of study, criminology, and has often been referred to in a majority of my courses.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

 * Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Yes, the Lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * The Lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

 * Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date. The last edit was 2 months ago.
 * No, there is no content that is missing or does not belong.
 * I think the article does briefly address a few topics related to historically underrepresented people, such as people with mental health or brain disorders.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Yes, the article is neutral.
 * I do not think there are any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * I do not think there are any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * Yes, all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * I think the sources are through.
 * A fair amount of the sources are current, but not all of them. The oldest source dates back to 1973, while the most current one dates to 2019. Most of the sources seem to be in the late 2000s to mid 2010s.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

 * Yes, the article is well-written.
 * No, the article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Yes, the article is well-organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

 * The article includes one image that is related to the topic, but does not really enhance an understanding of the topic.
 * No, the image is not well-captioned. There is no description for the image nor any mention of it in the article.
 * No, the image is in the public domain, but it is not properly cited.
 * Yes, the image is laid out in a visually appealing way in that it is seen when one first opens the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation

 * There are relevant conversations going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic. One conversation was about whether or not they should merge two similar categories within the article.
 * This article is related as Start-Class. It is an article within the scope of WikiProject Law.
 * Wikipedia discusses this topic differently from how it is talked about in class in that it goes more into depth about its religious underlying assumption, and it does not solely focus on deterrence in the US.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation

 * The article is fairly new (started in 2006) and is still developing.
 * The article is relevant, neutral, and fairly professional in content.
 * The article can be improved with the addition of images and media, and an updating of relevant content/sources.
 * The article is not yet complete, but its content does not seem to be poorly developed, just underdeveloped.

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: