User:JhaStudent/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
APA style

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as the APA style was used in MPA #1. It appears to have a general history and criteria for versions of the APA format.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

-> It does.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

-> The later sections with headings are not introduced at the start. Instead, the lead provides the history and criteria of the APA format.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

-> It seems some info in the lead is not included in further major sections.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

-> The lead is on the lengthy side. A section could have been created for the history alone, rather than being included in the lead.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

-> Yes.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

-> It appears so, as the current version of APA is 7 as of now (9/23/2023).


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

-> The talk page mentions more content that could be added, including an article focusing solely on the books relating to the APA style and some examples to be included. There is also a banner mentioning the need for more citations in order to be verified.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

-> The current article does not mention either.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?

-> The article is neutral.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

-> There do not appear to be biased claims.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

-> Certain contributions and sources for APA are underrepresented.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

-> These were not mainly mentioned.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

-> No.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

-> It appears most info listed is from reliable sources.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

-> They do.


 * Are the sources current?

-> More recent sources have been added with the old sources.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

-> Some sources have unspecified individual authors. I am unsure how diverse the spectrum of authors is. For the second question, I do not believe so.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

-> Most sources appear to be the best available, including the publication manuals for APA.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links appear to work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The information provided is compact. The lead could potentially be split into more sections.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

-> Upon a quick inspection, there it does not seem so.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

-> The article includes one image of the publication manual, which is a minor inclusion that does not largely enhance the understanding of the topic.


 * Are images well-captioned?

-> The image cited is captioned and objectively self-explanatory.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

-> Yes.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

-> The image that is placed is not distracting. It serves its purpose.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Conversations include info that could be added, corrections to formatting and bias, updates for new editions to the APA format, and more.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

-> The article is in the C-class and is part of the WikiProjects of Psychology, Academic Journals, Reference Works, Writing, and Higher Education.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

-> In class, we discussed the current format of APA 7 for MPA #1. Mentions of APA 6, along with other history and criteria, are included in this article which was not necessary for our assignment, but goes more in depth for the format itself.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

-> The article could have more info and citations.


 * What are the article's strengths?

-> It records many aspects of the APA style and has not become outdated.


 * How can the article be improved?

-> More citations and sections referring to other subjects for the APA style could be included.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

-> The article is developed in a manner that could use more info, but is currently in a manageable state that could be considered sufficient to some.