User:JamBing/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Structural violence

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Structural violence has been a poignant concept in our course. I think the format of the page is a bit lacking.

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: It briefly touches on the concepts of structural violence. The first sentence feels a bit unsure. I think some of the forms of violence that are encapsulated in this could be better expanded upon later in the article.

Content: More additions for definitions could be useful, but the most recent one is from 2019 which is rather recent compared to the first defining by Galtung. The cultural violence section would benefit from elaboration. The cause and effect section needs some work, primarily that of adding sources. I think there could be more causes and more effects elaborated upon. I think the international scope is a useful addition.

Tone and Balance: I would say this article is not necessarily neutral. I think where structural violence has so many biases and can harm a lot of people it is difficult to write this page in an observant way. The introduction is the most neutral section.

Sources and References: A little more than half of the sources are from the 1990s, the rest are from the 2010s. The link to the second resource was invalid. I think the majority of resources are topical, some I think are a bit more broad.

Organization and writing quality: I think the structure could use some work in this article. The sub-sections of causes and effects are very limited. The international scope section would benefit from headings directly stating the countries it is talking about.

Images and media: There are no images for this article, but I can see how finding one might be difficult. I think images could be examples of legislation or government-condoned violence.

Talk Page: I think there are some good notes for improvements in the talk page, and there is a bit of minor tension.

Overall impressions: there is a good start, but ultimately this article is fairly unorganized. The information provided was more up to date than I thought. I would say it's underdeveloped. You can very much tell pieces of it were written here and there without a real effort to make it cohesive.