User:JilllianMorris/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.


 * List of academic fields: List of academic fields
 * I was interested in seeing how many different fields of study were named, and would be listed. I was also interested in seeing how many variations of psychology fields there would be in the article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * In a way; it seems to list all fields of study. But, it does limit these fields to being available only in higher education, which is not accessible to everyone.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * These fields seem to be only attainable through a higher education (accredited as well).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It seems to heavily favor higher education, but doesn't seem to use persuasive techniques.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * no
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * no
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most of the conversations are about edits/additions that have been made. There was also a question about merging this article with Outline of academic disciplines, which seems like a valid request. Someone also notes that a field of study is broader than an academic discipline, and that the article should make this distinction.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * I am not sure, but I do not believe that it is rated, nor is it a part of any projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It does not, other than the note about field of study vs. academic discipline.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * good
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is concise and thorough.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The lead could be rewritten, with more details added.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would give it 3.5 or 4 stars in these areas.

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: